Comments on: Lumiera’s new logo concept – tweaks part deux

By: Scotty Orr

Scotty Orr — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:28:54 +0000

The sprocket holes bother me a bit - both the original and the modified. I’m not a graphics artist but the lower row of holes in both cases appear “out of line” with the upper row. (It looks like the whole row should be moved toward the film curl.) It may be an optical illusion but that’s how it appears to me.

Studying this made me think if the row was moved, that the final hole (the one you added) might not show at all, but that light shining thru it might show up on the black below. Then I thought - that could be the “dot” on the i. (That might not work at all for the “negative” logo.)

By: Richard Querin

Richard Querin — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 14:20:06 +0000

Troy - I notice the horizontal imbalance now that you point it out. And while I like the feel of the dark option I showed above, the black on white option feels somewhat disjointed to me which, like you say, may be down to object sizes and placement.

I probably won’t play much more with it only because I’m not really in control of it anyway. There is some talk as well on the mailing list of the use of the logo (sans wordmark) independently, so a lot of rework would depend on the actual uses. I think it’s an interesting exercise though and I *really* appreciate your obviously educated opinion. We need more discussions and input like yours in the open source software world.

By: Troy James Sobotka

Troy James Sobotka — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:37:12 +0000

Wow, I’m rather stunned that you put the effort into a reworking…

In terms of composition, there would be two outstanding points remaining. Of course this is a mental exercise as the Free Software minds that drive our world really could give a rat’s rear about art and design in the big, overarching, holistic sense.

1) The composition horizontally on the wordmark, while much improved, is now fighting it’s centre of gravity, as should be apparent. While you have nailed the mathematical centre, it should be noted that the perceptual centre is actually different. The foot stroke of the a and the negative space is contrasted against the perfect linear stroke of the l. This causes the centre of gravity to pull itself away from the negative space of the a toward the l.

2) The composition vertically, as noted before, is heavily on the symmetrical side of things. This would be roughly akin to perfectly centering a head in the middle of a photograph — an accepted no-no in all post Renaissance composition from which Westernized art has gleaned its sense of aesthetics.

If you carry on with the exercise, I’d suggest adjusting the composition on the wordmark in conjunction with the logo itself and perhaps even play with compositional options. Finally, offset the compositional balance of the logo with the wordmark by experimenting with differing sizes of the two components.

It’s certainly an interesting adjustment, and it certainly feels tighter than the original work.

By: rfquerin

rfquerin — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:58:43 +0000

@Earl - LOL. In these parts (my office) you get called an artsy fartsy just for mentioning the word ‘fonts’. As far as logo design goes, I’ve been actively trying to simplify when I can. I try to avoid any gradients etc, and just stick with as few colours as possible. That said, when you’re designing something that’s strictly for the web (and not print), there is a tendency to start playing around with gradients, shadows and reflections. At least there is for me.

By: Earl

Earl — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:53:09 +0000

Richard,

Someone would think you’re an engineer or something.

IMHO I think your tweaks did slightly improve on the original design. The fonts better and that missing sprocket hole needed to be added because the brain quickly sees it’s missing in the original.

It’s a nice simple yet adaptable design. When I try to design a logo I usually tend to make it too complex.