ZoomConcept Reviews
Minor Problem on ts_logo_v1.png 1 This kinda looks silly. Is it suppose to be holding up the top block with with your initials in it while floating in mid air? Removal. -
-
Feliphe Tomazetti commented:this is perfect
2 Out of curiosity why is this here? Also, I think the border is a to thick. I would prefer slim box lines, they tend to look better to me. -
Tim Sullivan commented:
The lower box is present as an abstract design element, used to balance the design, create contrast and visual interest, and connect the upper box with my name by living in the same vertical space as the upper box and the same horizontal space as my name.
Its width is twice that of the line, which is the same width as the crossbar in the T. I did try making it the same width as the line, but felt that was too weak to sit under the upper black box. I'll upload that version. Your thoughts would be appreciated.
3 Why the space between here? In actuality why both of them? -
Tim Sullivan commented:
The space is meant as a continuation of the black line and to provide separation between the boxes.
Serious Problem on ts_logo_v1.png 1 Too safe fonts here. That takes away from any design element, especially as a graphic designer. -
Tim Sullivan commented:
I am always open to two fonts in a logo, but have always found one to be quite acceptable. I will upload a version that uses a different font for the ts. Let me know if you feel that addresses you concern.
Summary:
Hey Tim,
Before I go into my review, I should probably explain my viewing of the word timeless and how we in the design community sometimes confuse it as classic. In my opinion, timeless refers to a design that doesn't have to be good at all. Its just a design that can maintain whatever level its at for a long period of time while only needing a few alterations while maintaining the same structure(see MTV). Now a classic design is one that is spectacular and doesn't need to be altered in any further way to maintain that level(see ABC or apple).
I also wanted to point out, again just in my opinion, that every design follows one trend or another. Its just how we as creatives put are own spin on something that turns a trend into a classic design practice. Again look at ABC's logo, the ts in the square technically falls under that category of following a trend here. The difference here is that, through ABC's longtime use of that same logo it has evolved into a classic design technique. Okay I'm sorry about that, I'm just in one of my design philosophical moods today. Hope it made sense, now back to your concept :).
Positives
-You do achieve a certain sense of timeless presence here with your logo. Its not too much, but I can see it needing minor changes as time progresses.
-Your not going the round corner route. That is good, because as of right now to me this is a bit of an overdone element in out design field. Especially since CSS3 made it so easy to do >.<
Negatives
-Too much text for a logo. Your name and profession shouldn't be here. In my opinion, a logo shouldn't really have any descriptive text. It should just be a symbol, unless can be incorporated in a good way. However, since you are a graphic designer I wouldn't suggest it. I do feel a symbol alone will suffice for your official logo and you can include the full name on your website header or business card.
I'll leave the rest of my comments for the annotations. Hope I gave you more insight in my review. :)
-
Tim Sullivan commented:
Jamal—I'm glad to have caught you in a philosophical mood! I see the distinction you are driving at, though my take is that if a design is not good, it will not stay around long. In that way I see quite a bit of overlap between classic and timeless. At any rate, in the sense that you are using the terms, it is classic that I am striving for.
I will definitely keep your comments about removing the text and using a mark only in mind and give it serious thought, though my reaction at the moment is to keep both my name and the mark. Do you see the two as inherently separate? I guess I view some marks as designed to stand on their own (e.g., ABC), while others are designed to stand in relation to text. Does this make sense?
Thanks for all your comments, buddy. You have given me much to think about and helped answer some of my questions about the design.
-
Jamal Jackson commented:Hey Tim,
I'm pretty glad reviewing your logo got me in this mood, got a new blog article idea from it ^_^! Your marks about some logos needed text in relation to the symbol and others not makes clear sense. My thing is that if you are going to use text in a logo, that it must be pin point on. If not, it will seem out of place and throw off your design. I like some of Alex's revisions, in the last one mainly there is good promise. As long as there is some font changes possibly, or they could just be a bit too big for my taste.
Glad that I helped.
-
Summary:
I always pay a lot of attention to how I feel about a design in the first instants..you know before my designer baggage kicks-in and I start to over-think stuff. this is particularly important since your stated goal is of timelessness and simplicity.
Timelessness somewhat translates to an instant sense familiarity. It is neither so novel or trendy, or beautiful or ugly in a way that it gets my attention. i sits there pleasantly giving context: what I am looking at, is related to Tim Sullivan.
So yes in that regard It was very pleasant. I liked it. It is a well balanced graphic arrangement of negative spaces. and a "cantilevered" name.
HOWEVER, as I examined it was a bit disconcerting:
first "graphic design"? it feels more like "architect" or "urban planner"
second it feels like a puzzler: what is it? two blocks (nationwide insurance and h&r block combined) or is it a door? or could it be an OLD TIME printer's magnifier? the negative ruler cutting into it implies it is a longer shape rather than two squares.
Suddenly the whole composition feels overly complex.
yet I look at it and..I like it.. very weird
I am going to rate it down the middle because even though I like it, somehow I think you can improve on it.
I am eager to see what others say
-
Tim Sullivan commented:
HI Alex,
I see this as an abstract logo, whose meaning and association to the business it represents (myself) comes from use. I am not trying to convey a specific concept through the blocks, other than perhaps the design concepts of contrast and juxtaposition. But I don't expect anybody to articulate those. More than anything, I'm simply trying for a design that is unique, memorable, and appropriate to my design business.
I recently watch a wonderful video of a slideshow presentation by Sagi Haviv, one of the partners at Chermayeff & Geismar. He makes the point that abstract logos always seem unrelated to the business at first, but immediately come to be associated with it when put into use. That's how I think about the squares. (Video at: http://tv.howdesign.com/?et_mid=517371&rid=96682515)
I appreciate your comments about going back and forth between liking it, questioning it, and going back to liking it. I go through the same vacillation a lot when I look at—yes, it is weird! This is one of the things I hoped to come to understand better through people's comments. I think Jamal is pointing at a large part of the problem by questioning the relationship between the lines and the boxes. (I hope I am not putting words in his mouth.) In your attached suggestions, I also see a drive to remove the ambiguity in the relationship between the line and boxes.
Thanks a ton for all your visual suggestions you have attached! They help a lot and point the way to solving some the weirdness. Is it OK to draw upon the heavily? I trust that's what they are there for.
Thanks for all your comments, my friend. CF and the talented people here are an invaluable resource.
Attached Files:
-
Summary:
Tim,
This is really close to being perfect on all the things that you want from a logo, it's simple and it will be timeless I have done a few similar logo's for clients over the years and when they have had new blood in that want to change the logo, they have always said, you can change the font, but not the mark.
Your mark is nice and effective, my only critique would be to remove the empty box under the ts and drop the line above the Tim Sullivan, if I'm not mistaken that font looks to be Aller regular… I would maybe look at helvetica neue light for the graphic design under your name, and maybe just shorten to design and float it under the sullivan…
Good Job!
-
Tim Sullivan commented:
Thanks, Aaran!
You are spot on about Aller. I have to admit that I am a bit of a Helvetica fan and use it a lot. I had shied away from it in the interest of uniqueness. However, I had not thought of your idea to use it just for "design." That's definitely worth exploring.
I've upload a version of what I think you are suggesting using Helvetica Neue (version 4). I have also uploaded a version of the same idea a using serif font for "Design" for added contrast (version 5). There are definitely some alignment issues that need to be addressed in them. Any comments?
Thanks for your input.
-
Aaran Casey commented:I think 4 is really working, although I am not too keen on the kerning of design (that's just me…) I am wondering if Tim Sullivan might not look better as lowercase… see attached
-
Tim Sullivan commented:
I see your point on the lower case. I'll give it serious thought.
Attached Files:
-
Minor Problem on ts_logo_v4_v5.png 1 Think the mix of serif and sans serif doesn't work Positive Feature on ts_logo_v4_v5.png 1 Have to say much preferring this to the earlier versions Summary:
Hi Tim
I like version 4 alot. Would not have gone for the first one. Also love the fact that you are versioning here...
Amazing what a difference fonts can make.
Also really like the fact that you have gone lower case with your name. i am on a mission to make people use lower case a bit more! it is so much more readable.
Now back to my own logo! Lisa
-
Tim Sullivan commented:
Lisa, Thanks for your comments. I appreciate your input.
-
Minor Problem on ts_logo_v2_v3.png 1 These done seem to work that well they just look like the name is or the Icon with the initials in are out of place Summary:
This is a really nice and clean logo i just thing the first 3 are to big for not alot in there and i know I'm a fan of the white space but it seems a little to plain on the top of you first 3 and as a letter head it will take to much of the top of you sheet of paper
Summary:
I really like the idea, but the elements is hard to be usable
I would say that the purpose of the line is twofold: 1) To create and define space, and 2) Unite the mark with my name. The connection between the line and the boxes has been a question mark for me. I have been concerned about a possible problem where the line meets the boxes and wondering if that point was too weak to anchor the elements together. Your comment answers this clearly. Thanks!