New logo, well not new, my logo first attempt

[kimberley]

What ya think, first one is all my own, the last had a friend help.....

[Tammie]

They look good....Have you tried the writing reverse?


Tammie

[CypressPhotog]

I think I like the cursive font better in the last one but the colors need to be much bolder on that one. I like the font for "photography" better on the first two.
So, in my opion, combine the "photog.." font on the first two with the "by kimberly" font on the last one and you have it made! Very fresh and modern.

[eurotrash]

i love the last design but i was never too hot on the "photography by ____" deal

[kimberley]

Tammie....whats writting reverse?

[LoungeLizard]

I'm with Erin, the 3rd one is nice - but make the pop more.

[Gabby498]

Kimberly, you would want your signature logo to be compatible with the type of photography you are doing. You would not use the same signature logo for a portrait photographer as you would for an industrial photographer or even one that is shooting for fine art. The fonts and design chosen needs to enhance the business concept.

You would also want to take into consideration how and where you will be using the logo. If you are thinking something like a yellowpage ad or stenciled on the front window, then you want to consider readability and boldness. If you are wanting to use it on letterheads and on the margins of photographs you have the opportunity to go with something that is lighter, more upscale, sophisticated, modern.

You do want to use exciting fonts—something different, out of the ordinary but not so stylized that they are not easily readable. The first two are good attempts, but the fonts are just not that exciting, especially font used for Kimberly. That appears to be a version of Avant Garde, which is a basic sans serif text font. Being designed for text means that it is a very readable font, but dull from usage.

The third is much more delicate, more feminine and would be very suitable for a female photographer doing portraiture, wedding, children pictures. The only problem that I have with the third example is a possible issue with the readability of Kimberly. The font used is very attractive but it is a little stylized if used in a situation where viewer is quickly scanning a page for a photographer. In most other situations it is a fine choice.

I would suggest that you do some compressing between the O-T and the T-O in Photography—there is considerably more space there then in the other letters which breaks up the word. I do like the fact that there is some overlap of the lettering between the two lines, which gives a feeling of a single whole of the logo. I am not wild about using three different colors for a logo that contains only three words, looks a little overdone. I would be tempted to change the color of the by to either of the other two colors.

Just some opinions—nothing carved in stone. Designing a logo is a lot of fun and I hope you are enjoying the adventure.

[Gabby498]

Sorry, but one more thing. The third uses three different fonts, sorta like color, it's a little overdone. You could change it to the same font and point size as the Kimberly, or to the Photography font and just use it in a smaller point size.

[kimberley]

thanks guys..I really appreciate all your help

[ndsimm]

another vote for the 3rd one, but change the font in "by" to the same type as "Kimberly" and it's better (keep the colors though)