In the process of drawing up a logo. College student = insufficient funds to pay the right people to do the right thing, so please don't lecture me on that For now I'll just pass the logo along to all my design friends and get their input (although I haven't done that yet). So... Let 'er rip.
Two things to note: 1. "Visuals" is there because I will be doing video, in addition to photography. 2. Ignore the jpeg compression artifacts, those obviously won't be there. The words and logo are straight black.
Oh, and I forgot to mention that the horizontal "mikevillavisuals.com" isn't quite set yet and still needs some work, as does the kerning in the diagonal "visuals", but they give you the general idea of what I'm going for.
Why show us a non-polished product? It could change a lot by the time you kern things out and see what fits and what doesn't, adjust the scale and exact positioning, etc...
Are you pushing your first name, or your last name? Right now it looks like your pushing 'MIKE' more than Villa? I would think you would want to push your last name, or place equal emphasis.
Also, the word VISUALS stands out more than your name, yet I would think your name is more important or equally important as the word 'visuals.
Why show us a non-polished product? It could change a lot by the time you kern things out and see what fits and what doesn't, adjust the scale and exact positioning, etc...
I see where you're coming from. I don't think it'll change too drastically (think 90% to where I want it) and so I think that the main points of it are pretty set and are able to be critiqued. I'm posting an unfinished product mostly because once it's done, I'll be less open to changing it. Just a little psychological pride I guess
Are you pushing your first name, or your last name? Right now it looks like your pushing 'MIKE' more than Villa? I would think you would want to push your last name, or place equal emphasis.
See! Good feedback! On an UNFINISHED product! Haha I felt like it conveyed a little more friendly attitude (the whole first name basis thing) and added a bit of informality, although now that you point it out it does seem a little odd. For whatever reason I'm slightly against bolding my last name, even though that's how my current logo is. Maybe no emphasis is the way to go?
Also, the word VISUALS stands out more than your name, yet I would think your name is more important or equally important as the word 'visuals.
Agreed. I'll shrink that down a bit and see what it looks like.
What are some of the feelings this logo gets out of you guys? What does it say about my personality? What would you expect my photos/videos to look like?
Graphic designer here, so don't take my critique too personal.
First off, my first impression of the logo is that it's all over the place...there's no cohesiveness. Just look at the website address. You have two different weights and one word all in caps--you need to make up your mind about the hierarchy (and if you are going to have two different weights one needs to contrast much more sharply otherwise it fails in delivery).
Second the actual logo, I don't read this as an M and V and the word "visuals". I just get a strong impression of an M with a tacked on diagonal line and the word "visuals" like it's an afterthought. You need to make M and V have the same presence.
First off, my first impression of the logo is that it's all over the place...there's no cohesiveness. Just look at the website address. You have two different weights and one word all in caps--you need to make up your mind about the hierarchy (and if you are going to have two different weights one needs to contrast much more sharply otherwise it fails in delivery).
Simplify web address. Check.
Second the actual logo, I don't read this as an M and V and the word "visuals". I just get a strong impression of an M with a tacked on diagonal line and the word "visuals" like it's an afterthought. You need to make M and V have the same presence.
Thanks. I'm not quite sure how to make it more integral, but I'll tweak around with it a bit and see what comes out.
More food for thought. I too am a designer so take with some salt. I showed the logo to two people. One of the got a 'W' out of the design. Perhaps this is due to added weight (visually speaking) that the word 'VISUAL' provides on the right side of the logo.
The other person got the 'M' but never got the 'V', which is exactly what Amanda pointed out.
What about if you went for an "MVV" and got rid of the entire word "VISUALS" because you already have it down below. Seems overdone and useless to have it twice on your logo.
You could play around a lot with the downward strokes in the M to create the V, that would be the obvious starting point for me if I were designing the logo.
What about if you went for an "MVV" and got rid of the entire word "VISUALS" because you already have it down below. Seems overdone and useless to have it twice on your logo.
I thought about doing this and played around with it a little, but I could definitely stand to try again.
I think I need to clarify what this is a little more. The MV is a logo in the traditional sense, but what I'm trying to do is create my own branding. So the MV and .com logos most likely wouldn't be shown together in this format most of the time. Rather they'd both used for different things. Hard to explain, but think along the lines of the way Tony Hoffer or Purple Nickel brand their work. I'd like to head in that direction, maybe even more "commercialized" in terms of branding a lot.
What I'm trying to say in all that is I'd like the "MV" to be my logo. People who have never seen it before don't necessarily have to know exactly what it stands for on its own because it will be on something that they're aware I've created (a video, website, blog, photo, etc..) and there will most likely be something else to provide more detail.
I'm not trying to create an excuse for the illegibility, I'm just trying to get you to see what I'm going for.
Hope all that mumbo jumbo made sense
You could play around a lot with the downward strokes in the M to create the V, that would be the obvious starting point for me if I were designing the logo.
That's exactly why I didn't do it. I've seen a few logos with an M and a V like that. On an aesthetic level I just don't like the look, and on a "I don't wanna be like everyone else and do the obvious thing" level I'm not really a fan of doing the obvious. I understand that it would be much easier to make work and legible that way, but I'd like to avoid it if I can.
if I were you I would stay away from combining the M and the V unless they are clearly different colors or are sitting on a different vertical plane. M and V both have reflection symmetry. In other words, each half of each letter is a mirror image of the respective other half of the letter. When you try to combine two reflection symmetrical objects together, it reduces how easily the mind can discriminate between the two letters (especially when the letters have similar angled lines). That is why as noted by previous posters, some people see the M but do not see a V, while others see a W.
If you insist on using the M and V together, then you need to type out the entire letters and then differentiate them from each other, for instance, using different colors. The Waste Management Corporation logo is an example of reflectively symmetrical letters used effectively.
I got the letters M and I out of it at first glance. In present form, it seems too busy. You have horizontal text and then text at an angle, too. It makes for an odd combination at the angle you have it at.
Remember, we're talking full on branding here. Lots of variations for lots of uses. Which mv do you prefer? Does the over/under mikevilla visuals work best right or left aligned? Does the photo video graphy tag make sense? Does everything seem coherent and in tune with each other? Thoughts on what it communicates visually? And of course any other bad news/good news advice you have for me.
I actually don't like the name, first and foremost...I know it's not the critique that you're looking for, but "visuals" makes me think that you're a design shop or possibly a retoucher, not a photographer/videographer. "Mike Villa Images" might speak more strongly to me. Try saying it out loud a few times too - the "v" alliteration is a little bit awkward. Gotta remember that your branding has to work verbally as well as in print.
Of the revised branding you posted...don't like either of the options on the left. They don't say "image-savvy" or "young and hip" to me, they feel like conservative industrial design. They remind me of the logos for equipment rental houses, in fact.
Of the two in the middle, I think I prefer the top-most - it kinda reminds me of the masthead design for magazines like Thrasher and TransWorld (surfing/skating), reads a little more modern and clean. Other than that it doesn't carry other connotations for me, so it's free to be inflected with whatever you pair it up with. If I were looking at advertising, I'd see that logo meshing well with photography like sports, youthful portraits, music, pop culture stuff...but not well with things like weddings or possibly corporate work (exec portraits, real estate/architectural, etc.).
Not a huge fan of the ones on the top, bottom or right. The mix of all-caps/no-caps and various font sizes feels clunky to me (maybe align the height of the caps with the top of the short letters in the no-caps?) and weighting of the words feels off...my eye doesn't know where to go. "photo/video/graphy" just makes no sense...I understand what you're trying to do with it but it's visually-confusing and makes the wrong impression. If you'd taken "-graphy" and layered it behind and overlapped with the other two words it might convey the combination/versatility theme that I think you want it to have.
Thanks for the great feedback shatterkiss! Exactly the kind of stuff I'm looking for.
As for as the visuals part of things, I'm good with it. Very rarely do I here about a photographer or videographer refereed to as Joe Bob Photography or Betty Sue Productions when being talked about. Usually people just bring up their name. So in that sense I'm ok sacrificing a tiny bit of awkward alliteration for a more visually appealing word. And honestly I personally don't think it's that awkward to say, but maybe that's just me? I get everything you're saying about it, but for now I think I'm going to stick to it.
I'm actually glad you think the two left logos are too conservative. I was thinking the same thing but needed to hear it from someone else. My friend came up with an idea like this:
I really dig them, but I feel like they don't quite fit in with the styling of the rest of the branding. A little extra readability wouldn't hurt either. So maybe I'll play with those as well. Thoughts?
it kinda reminds me of the masthead design for magazines like Thrasher and TransWorld (surfing/skating), reads a little more modern and clean. Other than that it doesn't carry other connotations for me, so it's free to be inflected with whatever you pair it up with. If I were looking at advertising, I'd see that logo meshing well with photography like sports, youthful portraits, music, pop culture stuff
This is exactly what I was going for. Glad to hear it works.
Not a huge fan of the ones on the top, bottom or right. The mix of all-caps/no-caps and various font sizes feels clunky to me (maybe align the height of the caps with the top of the short letters in the no-caps?) and weighting of the words feels off...my eye doesn't know where to go.
I see what you're saying here. Definitely needs more work. Check.
"photo/video/graphy" just makes no sense...I understand what you're trying to do with it but it's visually-confusing and makes the wrong impression. If you'd taken "-graphy" and layered it behind and overlapped with the other two words it might convey the combination/versatility theme that I think you want it to have.
Dang. I really want this to work. I really like the stacked design but it only works with three layers. I dink around with it some.
The last two logos are not bad, except they resemble A/V (audio/video). I can see an "M" but only barely. obviously it would help to have your name below the logo so people recognize the M.
I agree with shatterkiss in that the name "visuals" is a bit odd. Maybe try "photo and video".
For now I'll just pass the logo along to all my design friends and get their input (although I haven't done that yet). So... Let 'er rip.