New logo needed please CC

[photopam]

I am working on a new logo/look for myself. I want to have a better idea of what I want. These are ruff drafts. The second one has a color theme behind it as an idea of my color scheme I'd love to use.

I am wanting something that matches my style. I believe my style to be soft and whimsical. If you have any differing thoughts, please share!

I would appreciate any feedback!

Thank you very much!

[photopam]

I forgot to add, I do mainly children/babies/families. If that helps any.
Thanks again! Can't wait to hear your feedback.

[texkam]

I want to have a better idea of what I want.

Asking for graphic design advice from photographers is like asking graphic designers for photographic advice. You may get plenty of feedback but it may not be what you need. Most people don't treat branding with the seriousness it deserves. I would highly recommend seeking the help a good graphic designer.

[J Eddington]

I like the concept of one but it looks rough. But i thought of clothing when i saw it.
Two is more classy, but would like to see it in b/w. You may need it in B/W too. You never know. I just don't know how it would work on letterhead etc. But overall i think i like it better.

[staceylking]

Originally Posted by texkam

Asking for graphic design advice from photographers is like asking graphic designers for photographic advice.

Fortunately there are a LOT of photographers who were graphic designers before they were photographers You'd be surprised how well that same eye for visual balance, composition, positive and negative space, etc., serves for both graphics and photography. I'm one of those graphic designers who came to photography out of necessity, and gradually it sucked me over completely LOL

Pam, the leaf on #1 is very cute, but the ladybug is too childish. I see what you were going for, though. If you perhaps changed to an overhead view of the ladybug, rather than the side view? Or go totally whimisical/impressionistic just do a red circle with black dots, and don't even try to make it look like a 'real' ladybug.

#2 looks more 'professional' and very well done, but I'm thinking that blue and that red together as your main colors are kind of hard on the eyes. You might better off with the crisp, whimsical cleanliness of white with little pops of blue in your website. Also, IMO the bitmap texturing of the background (as nice as it is), takes a little bit away from the clean vector styling of the logo itself.

Both logos are very well done, though. Did you do them?

[livinthalife]

I think the first one would be more suitable since you shoot children and babies (not literally of course :) ).

How ever, I do agree it seems a little "rough". if you could smooth it out somehow. I think the icon is more appealing to people with children or babies. the 2nd is nice, but looks like it's more for high school pics or people of more maturity.

[toverman]

I like them both, but the first one makes me think that you actually photograph bugs (I loves me some macro). The second one is nice, but the bug is almost too abstract ... not enough legs or antennae. In black and white, I think the effect of a ladybug would be lost completely. And it is a little complex when you're talking about using it other places. Having distinct colors for branding is good, but reproducing it across various media can be an issue.

Asking fellow photogs what we think of a logo makes sense to me. Some of us do have graphic design experience (as Stacey said), but some of us also have experience in what has worked or not. Being visually oriented to some degree, we can also easily form opinions on what looks horrible or awesome. Now, don't start asking us legal advice ...

[photopam]

Thanks everyone for your feed back!

These are rough drafts, just me sketching on the computer to get an idea of what I want down. I agree the ladybug in the first is very ruff, but it gives the idea of the look I am trying to achieve. I don't think I would use the background with the second, it was just an idea of color.

I want people to see me as more of a higher end children's photographer, so I think I am leaning towards the second one. But am still open to the first. I just wanted some other opinions/ideas to what might work/ what won't.

Thanks again! These are all helpful comments.

[dmora]

Originally Posted by texkam

Asking for graphic design advice from photographers is like asking graphic designers for photographic advice. You may get plenty of feedback but it may not be what you need. Most people don't treat branding with the seriousness it deserves. I would highly recommend seeking the help a good graphic designer.

Good thing i do both. ;) About to finish up a double major in Communication Design and Photography.

I think these two fields should absolutely be hand in hand.

In regards to the logos. Considering your target market, and your style are very important. In graphic design you want to communicate these issues in a direct but not "in your face" method.
Choice of type is VERY important. Type has emotion and description tied to it, eg. you wouldnt really use a script or humanist font for a cutting edge IT company.

Secondly, what you're designing looks more like a letter head than a logo.
Think of all the really excellent logos ever made:






My suggestions to you are try for a less "in your face" type face. Style for the sake of fashion is temporal and will not last. You can be subtle and still get the meaning of playful and youthful and energetic.
Start here.
http://www.blog.spoongraphics.co.uk/...-design-career

These fonts are ephemeral and are the pinnacle of typographic design.

Then go here:
www.fonts.com

See if you find something based off the best fonts. I suggest VAG Rounded, Cocon, or Bembo.
Play with encorporating the ladybug concept into the type. Replace a letter with an abstraction of a bug perhaps. Or add a bug sitting on top of a letter. Replace a letterform with a branch/leaf with a ladybug on it. Play with all sorts of experimentations of your theme.

Good luck :)

dmora added 23 Minutes and 53 Seconds later...Double Post Merged Below



Something quick and dirty i came up with.
Could be crap, could be a start, could be my fee is in the mail?

Experiment, play, research, experiment again.

[photopam]

Ok, Thanks for all the great ideas. I reworked one of them and this is what I came up with. Not sure if it takes my image down or not...
i also added one I had in the past. The font on that one is what I am using currently on my website. I didn't really like that ladybug, so i ditched it and added an adornment. That is what is on my website currently.
I am worried that using a ladybug will bring my image down to "cheap" I do not want to appear "cheap" in anyway. Any ideas to avoid this?
Please let me know! Thanks.

[PhotoByLeal]

I like the last one on the right post # 10!
Very nice and clean and simple, but still very stylish...... did not care for the first ones......
good luck!

[livinthalife]

I like the simplicity of 9 most.

[jprechel]

I'd vote for #2. You might also consider using a site like 99designs.com or logosauce.com to have your logo designed for you. It would probably only cost $200-300 to get a very nice professional logo. I have used them in the past and have been very pleased with the results.

[texkam]

You might also consider using a site like 99designs.com or logosauce.com to have your logo designed for you.

How many photographers are happy doing spec work?


http://www.thelogofactory.com/logo_b...w-logo-design/
:)

[staceylking]

I think you should go with your gut instinct on style. YOU are the one who knows you and your style best, so if you have the skill to do it yourself (which you obviously do), you shouldn't pay $200+ for a logo you don't love.

I think the typeface you chose first is just fine. It conveys exactly what you said you wanted to convey.

Simplifying isn't a bad thing, unless you make it SO simple that anyone with a computer could duplicate it.

Anyway, going with YOUR gut instinct, I took what you had initially and fiddled a bit...

This one might fall into the 'too simple' category, but maybe not.


I like the styling of this one best. The name, typeface, and flourishes convey the whimsical aspect, but it's simple and elegant, and not easily replicated.


Another bonus to this design is that it makes a cool watermark: