SBoerup - Thank you very much. Ok, Well tell me 1st please, what type of photography does it look like to you? What do u think of when you see it? But I want to go for modern, cutting edge, high end, wedding photography.
snapware, the most recent version is almost *too* simple; it needs some identifier (such as the intertwined photographers/cameras) in the event that you do not have space or do not choose to use the rest of the letters in the logo.
snapware wrote:
Mdude - Thanks, can you explain more please. So you are saying the most recent version has no identifier?
EOS - Interesting. Thanks for your input. Perhaps a capital T may be clearer than.
snapware -- take a look at most corporate logos and you will see that they have a stylized wordage and also an additional "identifier" such as a symbol that people instantly recognize as being part of that brand. For instance, the Nike Swoosh, McDonald's Golden Arches, Sprint Needle, Apple Apple, RadioShack R, Best Buy Yellow Tag...you get the picture. The identifier is not necessary (a lot of companies such as Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, FedEx, IBM, have only a stylized wordage) but I personally think an identifier helps *especially for smaller companies*. It allows you to remove your wordage in the event that you do not have space for it and gives you more creative freedom for stationery, business cards, watermarks, etc.
Rarely will you see companies with two identifiers (e.g., an instant brand identifer such as the Swoosh along with another unique symbol within the Nike text). It obfuscates the public view of the brand.
I see nothing overly wrong with your last logo, simple can be good. You want your clients to concentrate on your images and not your logo. The one thing to change would be the lower case 's' or change it entirely to "photography" instead of "photographers".
snapware wrote:
SBoerup - Thank you very much. Ok, Well tell me 1st please, what type of photography does it look like to you? What do u think of when you see it? But I want to go for modern, cutting edge, high end, wedding photography.
Then none of these logos are right for you. They are modern and trendy...but not cutting edge, high end or wedding. The high end and cutting edge are not as important in your logo, your images should handle that. However the logo must say 'wedding photographer' and these say (to me) 'photographers'. Consider some wedding icons to incorporate...the cake being an obvious one..but perhaps too obvious and cheesy.
I just think they tend to be too vague for someone looking to carve a small niche (high end weddings).
FYI...another rule of thumb to remember...look at them all in Black and white and use that to decide vs color. That will really help you focus on the design and any logo MUST work in B&W.
I think #8 is terrific. It has the two cameras from an interesting perspective, will reproduce very well in B&W (doesn't rely too much on color and has that nice reverse knock out "O") and the two camera symbol can stand on it's own for a watermark or whatever. Great selection!
like anything logo-ized (like team uniforms), seeing the fully finished product helps, and is important, IMO.
Is this for letterhead, biz card, or an advertisement??
what kind of photography do you do (specialized or varied, events, media, weddings.... or whatever etc.)
I think your contact info personal name / website / e-mail / phone#'s are most important...
a logo is cool, but don't get too fancy.. although you have some really nice designs (in general)
need to see a biz card, for example.... i.e. will the logo overwhelm the card?
