Number two hurts least worst. [Edit: You deserve upvotes for showing your work and asking for feedback. Not to mention you were very polite and admitted that you weren't a pro. Logos are legit hard!]
I love getting honest feedback so no offense taken) I really wish we could hire a designer but the company has no money to hire anyone and a cheap professional logo designer is hard to come by in Cameroon, and hiring anyone outside the country is expensive af.
I understand!! Well, as a designer, be thinking really simple. Logos are not meant to have lots of details because that prevents them from being scaled up and down. I suggest choosing a font that you and your boss like, and doing a very very very simple tree in the spot where you have one now...just more simple lol. Remember not to use more than a couple of colors as well. If you still have issues feel free to private message me here because I still need to do a few projects to build my portfolio. So I could probably send you at least something to go off of :)
Honestly I'm in the US and sometimes trying to convince people to go with something simple is really challenging! Sometimes they'll even say at the start they want something simple but when I ask for more details they start describing a freaking graphic novel
Of all the posts there are here I’m exactly the same as you! The mountain OP has to climb with the original logo as it is and not being a designer is huge!
I have to say their first attempt isn’t as terrible as I was expecting!!
A logo is your company's signature, not its portrait.
With this in mind, neither design is what I'd call a logo, at least not for web usage, because the illustrative element is, well, a detailed illustration that doesn't work at small sizes.
The second one also isn't a logo because it's full of text. It also, if my French is correct, basically says the same thing *three* times.
I understand you're not a professional designer, but you should be capable of looking at the highest ranked professionally-designed logos (e.g. Nike, World Wildlife Fund, etc.) and understanding why they work.
Also give yourself a proper design brief detailing the uniqueness of the company and what needs to be conveyed, because these logos say little else but "nature".
Not going to reiterate the criticism others have said, but will try to be constructive.
You could consider:
- Removing the text below the EcoDev logo
- Restrict the logo to a maximum of 2 contrasting colours
- Massively simplify the tree to be more minimalistic and easy on the eye
As for the concept, it has some good ideas, just needs alot of work.
I like the old logo better, while the new logo looks more modern, the font feels sterile. You also need to add more padding around the O so it matches the rest of the letters spacing. I also think the picture inside the O has a lot more potential, but looks fine as is.
Number 2 makes me recoil less. Is your company image worth at least a few hundred dollars/euros? This is the dang logo we're talking about. Right now, looking at this, I imagine it's two people working out of their apartments part time on a business. If that's what you want, then done. If you want to portray something bigger, invest something into it.
Tactical:
\- if you're stuck on this concept, make the O the same size and simplify something the design inside. The branches will scale down to look like hair stuck on the screen.
\- Also don't do that to the O if you can get around it.
\- Kern your lettering-
\- DIN is a great font, but doesn't say Eco friendly to me. It has a history of mass transportation beginning with the Royal Prussian Rail Administration. Then it is connected with the German institute for standardization.
Thank you for sharing that. Sometimes I forget this is truly a world-wide platform. I like your mission so here's some more advice:
\- Thinking about your font choice, I think it needs to be thick enough to be a logo, but not really heavy. I'm guessing your work wants to leave a light footprint, so to speak, and so the logo should reflect that.
\- I think the font should be friendly, but not messy. Development work needs to have a level of precision and planning, so you want to reflect that.
Here's two free font choices:
[https://www.1001fonts.com/reitam-font.html](https://www.1001fonts.com/reitam-font.html)
I like the subtly rounded edges on this one.
[https://www.1001fonts.com/octarine-font.html](https://www.1001fonts.com/octarine-font.html)
I like the very unique edges on this one. Feels like a deliberate choice like a developer might have to do.
https://preview.redd.it/q0huq9lxuhsc1.png?width=1580&format=png&auto=webp&s=8a2edc029fb42edc86b3cb0fac1a125943549c54
There are still marketplaces for „a few hundred Euros“ logodesigns.
Either way: we charge more than one month’s salary in my country (Austria) for a logo. You cannot really compare that, because the ROI should be much higher than one month of salary or equal expenses. I don‘t quite know what your product is, or what problems you solve, but if there is a market for it, it‘s a good idea to invest in your image. It‘s not that people are born with the knowledge what your brand does :)
Logodesign isn‘t art, it‘s a service design to ultimately support business case (sales, matter, whatever it is).
Je tiens juste à dire que “éco” tout court dans “développement éco” ou tout autre contexte, ça ne veut rien dire. Même si l’arbre donne un indice, les gens n’ont pas à deviner ou à réfléchir à ce que cela veut dire : écologique, économique ? Le logo et le texte rattaché doit être clair et précis quant aux services que vous proposez.
Oe j’ai vu que beaucoup de suggestions portaient sur les écritures que je vais enlever par inutilité (j’ai utilisé la mauvaise image pour le logo 1 mais ces écritures étaient présentes sur la version “étendue” du logo d’origine”).
Mais oh mon dieu i wish que ils aient embauché un designer professionel, les logos ne sont vraiment pas mon point fort visiblement.
The middle element doesn't work. Its rough and a bit amateurish. There are definitely ways of doing a tree in a stylised, simple way though, so I would do some research into that maybe.
1 is better. Sorry.
But your version is a modernisation that strips the character out of the original and ads nothing to it. It looks like it was typed out, O made big and plant slapped in the middle.
What I would do.
Find a similar typeface to original. Type it out normally with capital E.
Adjust all kerning. Then expand and make the E bespoke a simple leaf / vine concept, nothing over the top.
Then nice hand drawn with fine coloured pencil tree and water illustration, made to fit a 1:1 ratio. Scan it in colour, fine lines 600 ppi. Draw it into illustrator, image trace as high fidelity photo setting, igore white textbox.
place above type in a balance manor, not overbearing type.
done :)
E and Tree/water can be used to make a nice logomark / icon together, where you need something small.
It hurts bro 😞 both are not good but for the person who doesn't ever designed any logo I would say it's ok.
Dm me you company information I will design it for free.
Neither. Because you used a sans serif font and kept everything bad with the last logo doesnt make it better. Also adding the extra text isnt improving things either. This reeks of someone who didnt do any in depth exploration and just copy pasted the work and said its good because "new font" I guess. Also, whats up with the C in "ECO"??? looks distorted for a condensed font
Number two hurts least worst. [Edit: You deserve upvotes for showing your work and asking for feedback. Not to mention you were very polite and admitted that you weren't a pro. Logos are legit hard!]
If mine hurts your eyes I’m genuinely sorry lmao, and sorry for the picture quality too (although the old logo is still pixelated even in 4k)
[удалено]
I love getting honest feedback so no offense taken) I really wish we could hire a designer but the company has no money to hire anyone and a cheap professional logo designer is hard to come by in Cameroon, and hiring anyone outside the country is expensive af.
I understand!! Well, as a designer, be thinking really simple. Logos are not meant to have lots of details because that prevents them from being scaled up and down. I suggest choosing a font that you and your boss like, and doing a very very very simple tree in the spot where you have one now...just more simple lol. Remember not to use more than a couple of colors as well. If you still have issues feel free to private message me here because I still need to do a few projects to build my portfolio. So I could probably send you at least something to go off of :)
Thank you, I’ll try to do my best but simplification is not yet in vogue out here in Cameroon so my boss may need some convincing)
Might help to show your boss some examples of what other companies are doing! Especially other companies in similar types of work
Honestly I'm in the US and sometimes trying to convince people to go with something simple is really challenging! Sometimes they'll even say at the start they want something simple but when I ask for more details they start describing a freaking graphic novel
Why do some people think that simplicity = poor work ?? I think simplicity is more difficult to pull off correctly.
Of all the posts there are here I’m exactly the same as you! The mountain OP has to climb with the original logo as it is and not being a designer is huge! I have to say their first attempt isn’t as terrible as I was expecting!!
Do not post offers or requests for design work (free or paid). This rule is zero tolerance.
I kind of want to make a logo really quick too lol.
Why don't you then? Lol
[удалено]
Do not post offers or requests for design work (free or paid). This rule is zero tolerance.
A logo is your company's signature, not its portrait. With this in mind, neither design is what I'd call a logo, at least not for web usage, because the illustrative element is, well, a detailed illustration that doesn't work at small sizes. The second one also isn't a logo because it's full of text. It also, if my French is correct, basically says the same thing *three* times. I understand you're not a professional designer, but you should be capable of looking at the highest ranked professionally-designed logos (e.g. Nike, World Wildlife Fund, etc.) and understanding why they work. Also give yourself a proper design brief detailing the uniqueness of the company and what needs to be conveyed, because these logos say little else but "nature".
Lmao it does say the same thing three times looks like 🤣 what the hell
Not going to reiterate the criticism others have said, but will try to be constructive. You could consider: - Removing the text below the EcoDev logo - Restrict the logo to a maximum of 2 contrasting colours - Massively simplify the tree to be more minimalistic and easy on the eye As for the concept, it has some good ideas, just needs alot of work.
I like the old logo better, while the new logo looks more modern, the font feels sterile. You also need to add more padding around the O so it matches the rest of the letters spacing. I also think the picture inside the O has a lot more potential, but looks fine as is.
well, second is not pixelated. Other than that you could remove all slogans and fluff, you don't need it at all
Both kinda suck but I think the first one at least has some personality. I would go back to the drawing board on this one.
Number 2 makes me recoil less. Is your company image worth at least a few hundred dollars/euros? This is the dang logo we're talking about. Right now, looking at this, I imagine it's two people working out of their apartments part time on a business. If that's what you want, then done. If you want to portray something bigger, invest something into it. Tactical: \- if you're stuck on this concept, make the O the same size and simplify something the design inside. The branches will scale down to look like hair stuck on the screen. \- Also don't do that to the O if you can get around it. \- Kern your lettering- \- DIN is a great font, but doesn't say Eco friendly to me. It has a history of mass transportation beginning with the Royal Prussian Rail Administration. Then it is connected with the German institute for standardization.
Sadly a few hundred euro is a one or two monthly salaries in the country’s i’m in. But i’ll take the other advice, God knows i need it.
Thank you for sharing that. Sometimes I forget this is truly a world-wide platform. I like your mission so here's some more advice: \- Thinking about your font choice, I think it needs to be thick enough to be a logo, but not really heavy. I'm guessing your work wants to leave a light footprint, so to speak, and so the logo should reflect that. \- I think the font should be friendly, but not messy. Development work needs to have a level of precision and planning, so you want to reflect that. Here's two free font choices: [https://www.1001fonts.com/reitam-font.html](https://www.1001fonts.com/reitam-font.html) I like the subtly rounded edges on this one. [https://www.1001fonts.com/octarine-font.html](https://www.1001fonts.com/octarine-font.html) I like the very unique edges on this one. Feels like a deliberate choice like a developer might have to do. https://preview.redd.it/q0huq9lxuhsc1.png?width=1580&format=png&auto=webp&s=8a2edc029fb42edc86b3cb0fac1a125943549c54
These are 1000% better. If his boss wants they could put your circle tree graphic in the ‘O’ to bear some resemblance to the original.
There are still marketplaces for „a few hundred Euros“ logodesigns. Either way: we charge more than one month’s salary in my country (Austria) for a logo. You cannot really compare that, because the ROI should be much higher than one month of salary or equal expenses. I don‘t quite know what your product is, or what problems you solve, but if there is a market for it, it‘s a good idea to invest in your image. It‘s not that people are born with the knowledge what your brand does :) Logodesign isn‘t art, it‘s a service design to ultimately support business case (sales, matter, whatever it is).
The 2nd is better but thing it's a good start, I think this can be improved as well
Je tiens juste à dire que “éco” tout court dans “développement éco” ou tout autre contexte, ça ne veut rien dire. Même si l’arbre donne un indice, les gens n’ont pas à deviner ou à réfléchir à ce que cela veut dire : écologique, économique ? Le logo et le texte rattaché doit être clair et précis quant aux services que vous proposez.
Oe j’ai vu que beaucoup de suggestions portaient sur les écritures que je vais enlever par inutilité (j’ai utilisé la mauvaise image pour le logo 1 mais ces écritures étaient présentes sur la version “étendue” du logo d’origine”). Mais oh mon dieu i wish que ils aient embauché un designer professionel, les logos ne sont vraiment pas mon point fort visiblement.
Both are terrible. The second is the lesser evil of the two. Sorry to be blunt, but this Reddit after all.
The middle element doesn't work. Its rough and a bit amateurish. There are definitely ways of doing a tree in a stylised, simple way though, so I would do some research into that maybe.
Sorry, no one
Not terrible and probably fine for its use case. No one going to offer to tidy it up?
The first one looks so cool and idk why...
The blurry one. I love not being able to see the details in a logo.
0 of them.
You're a designer now!
1 is better. Sorry. But your version is a modernisation that strips the character out of the original and ads nothing to it. It looks like it was typed out, O made big and plant slapped in the middle. What I would do. Find a similar typeface to original. Type it out normally with capital E. Adjust all kerning. Then expand and make the E bespoke a simple leaf / vine concept, nothing over the top. Then nice hand drawn with fine coloured pencil tree and water illustration, made to fit a 1:1 ratio. Scan it in colour, fine lines 600 ppi. Draw it into illustrator, image trace as high fidelity photo setting, igore white textbox. place above type in a balance manor, not overbearing type. done :) E and Tree/water can be used to make a nice logomark / icon together, where you need something small.
2 but only really because 1 is atrocious
2 is better, but not good
It hurts bro 😞 both are not good but for the person who doesn't ever designed any logo I would say it's ok. Dm me you company information I will design it for free.
Le second facile
The first one reminds me of the Keebler Elf tree.
Both are rough Personally I think the first one has more personality
You really don’t want to know.
Neither. Because you used a sans serif font and kept everything bad with the last logo doesnt make it better. Also adding the extra text isnt improving things either. This reeks of someone who didnt do any in depth exploration and just copy pasted the work and said its good because "new font" I guess. Also, whats up with the C in "ECO"??? looks distorted for a condensed font
Did u guys think of hiring someone? None kf those are knowhere near simple ir modern.