I think there's too much detail in it for a logo. It will cause problems when it's reproduced in smaller sizes. Maybe composing the m with bigger, fewer leaves, would improve it. Also I don't think the Typeface for the name does it justice. The upper case gives it a conflict of attention.
On the good aspects i like the interaction of the colors.
You're right on track with the detail/scalability thought... However if I can direct you to a couple links > I think you'll find that in terms of the complete identity set, the scalability issues have been addressed... In terms of the type, I hear you, but I suppose I just have to respectfully disagree... :)
During the design process, I developed several custom type options > for example: (LINK : CUSTOM TYPE)
In the end I decided to go with the minimal application of uppercase Helvetica > in an attempt to distract as little as possible from the mark itself. Lower case was an option, but I do feel the uppercase is better suited, while still causing minimal distraction.
Ok with this new info (or probably info I missed) I realize that more though went into the design than I originally though.
Using modified logos for different scales is something I probably would not consider doing. Not because I consider it a dab idea, but because I haven't really though about that. But is something I'm going to consider doing for future projects.
I guess the discussion on the type would be one of personal opinion. But giving it a bit more though, I haven't seen lets say a version with lowercase, so then I'm going to assume your choice was better suited. Also I see why you didn't use the custom type. That could be a logo all in itself.
Looking at it again and giving it a little more though, I think i like it more now.
Thanks a lot for the follow up Daniel > I'm happy to hear you've given it some additional consideration...
To be honest, the modified scale version is something I'm trying out for the first time myself... I've never actually seen it done in this way, although I've often seen small elements of marks adapted for use at scale. Something I thought about is the way icons work at different resolutions > often maintaining a 'similar' appearance, but also changing quite dramatically at small scale > of course you 'usually' still know what is...
The overarching ideal here is brand recognition via a specific design language. So really, whatever the format...be it modified M, pattern, color, etc... If I can get those elements (wherever they are) to translate to the brand as a whole, again, I suppose that's my ultimate goal.
Comments
I think there's too much
I think there's too much detail in it for a logo. It will cause problems when it's reproduced in smaller sizes. Maybe composing the m with bigger, fewer leaves, would improve it. Also I don't think the Typeface for the name does it justice. The upper case gives it a conflict of attention.
On the good aspects i like the interaction of the colors.
Daniel
Hi Daniel, Thanks a lot for
Hi Daniel,
Thanks a lot for the comment!
You're right on track with the detail/scalability thought... However if I can direct you to a couple links > I think you'll find that in terms of the complete identity set, the scalability issues have been addressed... In terms of the type, I hear you, but I suppose I just have to respectfully disagree... :)
During the design process, I developed several custom type options > for example: (LINK : CUSTOM TYPE)
In the end I decided to go with the minimal application of uppercase Helvetica > in an attempt to distract as little as possible from the mark itself. Lower case was an option, but I do feel the uppercase is better suited, while still causing minimal distraction.
LINKS TO ADDITIONAL MATERIAL >>
SCALED MARK HERE:
(LINK : MARK DISTILLED)
FULL IDENTITY SET HERE:
(LINK : IDENTITY SET)
...Additional versions & B/W marks can be found via FLICKR: (LINK : FLICKR)
Thanks again for the comment! Feedback is always appreciated! :)
Cheers!
^CORRECTION SCALED MARK
^CORRECTION
SCALED MARK HERE:
(LINK : MARK DISTILLED)
I actually still prefer the
I actually still prefer the one with smaller leaves. Beautiful branding too. I am going to submit it if you don't mind. :)
Ok with this new info (or
Ok with this new info (or probably info I missed) I realize that more though went into the design than I originally though.
Using modified logos for different scales is something I probably would not consider doing. Not because I consider it a dab idea, but because I haven't really though about that. But is something I'm going to consider doing for future projects.
I guess the discussion on the type would be one of personal opinion. But giving it a bit more though, I haven't seen lets say a version with lowercase, so then I'm going to assume your choice was better suited. Also I see why you didn't use the custom type. That could be a logo all in itself.
Looking at it again and giving it a little more though, I think i like it more now.
My regards
Daniel
Thanks a lot for the follow
Thanks a lot for the follow up Daniel > I'm happy to hear you've given it some additional consideration...
To be honest, the modified scale version is something I'm trying out for the first time myself... I've never actually seen it done in this way, although I've often seen small elements of marks adapted for use at scale. Something I thought about is the way icons work at different resolutions > often maintaining a 'similar' appearance, but also changing quite dramatically at small scale > of course you 'usually' still know what is...
The overarching ideal here is brand recognition via a specific design language. So really, whatever the format...be it modified M, pattern, color, etc... If I can get those elements (wherever they are) to translate to the brand as a whole, again, I suppose that's my ultimate goal.
Cheers!
Michael
Stunning.
Stunning.
Thank you so very much! I
Thank you so very much! I really appreciate it!
Post new comment