what do you think of my logo ?

[sebus]

i'm working on an identity for my freelance work. I just recently purchased a new domain name pixelinsomnia, my old one was pixeloxygen. What do you think of these, which one do you like if any:
http://www.pixelinsomnia.com/insomnia.jpg

[simplistik]

Where's the logo? All I see is a graphic. There isn't really anything distinguishable as a logo, or an identity.

Back to the drawing board you go.

[sebus]

umm yeah a graphic logo, 3 examples

[.soulty]

graphical logos should come last in my opinion.

firstly you should have a vector basis of the logo, a clean / corporate version of the logo that is scalable and limited to 2-3 colours. (yes you can have 4 colour logos but i would not advice it).

At the moment I only see some photoshoped portal looking things with a P in there. Take that p out of there and arrange some type for a company name and arrange that with the p symbol (if thats your main focus on this logo) and go from there.

;)

[Ryall]

what he's saying is a graphic is NOT a logo. Graphics contain complicated elements such as lighting, gradients, glows etc.

In your case that graphic could be turned into a logo by say, having that 'P' surrounded by a simple circle (all vector of course ;) ).... what you've posted would be more of an effect applied to a logo.

Like he said - back to the drawing board.

Peace

[sebus]

i've seen logos with out any type. I will do a vector version also thx.

[jillymo]

sebus, I think you have a good start...keep in mind when producing a logo most of the time the more simple, the better. When creating a logo you have to remember this is something that is going to be used over and over and most likely in different media formats. (print & web)

Maybe focus more on the shapes rather than the effects, although I think you can still get away with this (chrome type look you have) to a certain point. Just make sure people are going to be able to tell what it is.

Good Luck!

Logos do not need type, you are right most people use type because the graphic part of the logo itself may not be recognizable without the type explaining what company the logo represents. Companies spend millions (billions) of dollars getting enough exposure for people to recognize them by icon only. (think Target, Nike...)

[Photogenius]

they are not too badly made, but not really good for a logo. sorry!

[sebus]

http://www.pixelinsomnia.com/insomnia2.jpg
http://www.pixelinsomnia.com/insomnia3.jpg

[sebus]

vector version
http://www.pixelinsomnia.com/vectorinsomnia.jpg

[Ryall]

it still is too complicated with al the overlay and gradient effects, you didnt really improve anything or go in the direction mentioned... open up AI or use paths in PS to create your shape, and ditch the gradients. Logos need to be very print friendly and able to appear on almost every stock, medium and background color.

Peace

[sebus]

that is done in AI it's all vector, here is both side by side
http://www.pixelinsomnia.com/vectorandraster.jpg

[Ryall]

you posted a link to the vector version while I was posting.

The vector version is better for a logo... but I really dont like your design, not very creative or original. I'd try something else.

Peace

[simplistik]

that is done in AI it's all vector, here is both side by side
http://www.pixelinsomnia.com/vectorandraster.jpgJust cause it was done in AI doesn't keep from the fact that it's still a graphic and not really a logo. Aside from all that the grey is making the logo look dirty, use a purple/blue tint instead of grey.

[sebus]

thx, will work on it more. I also designed a logo for the company i work at, last one on the right was picked by everyone:
http://www.pixelinsomnia.com/iheardlogo.jpg

[paddy.]

No offense dude but all of those logos (all in the thread) are pretty horrible.

A logo needs to be just solid colours, paths, and, in the case of a small and relatively unknown company, type.

Photoshop cannot be used to make logos. You need to be using Illustrator or Freehand. Another thing to take into account is that logo's have to be perfectly legible at 3/4" and sometimes smaller. This means no gradients, no fine lines, and no semi-transparent elements.

Also, as Simp said, the grey looks grubby. Try a nice colour.

[fasterthanlight™]

I don't understand why the P is so big... i think it looks dumb poking through the solid ring on the outer edge.

[sebus]

i'll keep at it
i've only designed one logo before; so i'm very new at logo design :)

[simplistik]

This means no gradients, no fine lines, and no semi-transparent elements.
Not neccessarly true... you can use gradients in a logo. But it also has to be able to translate it into at least a 3-4 color spot, and white/black.

i'll keep at it
i've only designed one logo before; so i'm very new at logo design :)We all started somewhere :D :hugegrin:

[j_polo9]

i'll keep at it
i've only designed one logo before; so i'm very new at logo design Ur very positive with all the negative (though truthful) comments which is good! Eventually you'll come up with the winner, in the company ones i like the first row second column one but they already chose so its a mook point now.

[paddy.]

Not neccessarly true... you can use gradients in a logo. But it also has to be able to translate it into at least a 3-4 color spot, and white/black.

True, but gradients don't look very good when they're small. Gradients are what I consider "logo effects" or something you do to it to make it look nicer on-screen. I usually consider a logo as something that can look good with just 2 colours.

[.soulty]

yeah its true that you dont need type.. but thats not really a "logo" thats more of a "icon" which is part of a "logo". Nike didnt first have the tick developed as a logo on its own, it's an icon which is part of the original nike logo. btw did you know nike is the name of the greek goddess of victory and the swoosh (tick) was the shape of her wing!

i like the type face in http://www.pixelinsomnia.com/insomnia2.jpg but i really dont like that "portal" looking graphic, it dosent work in bitmap of vector form.

I like your dedication though and acceptance to hard-nose critism, it's refreshing, keep it up ;)