*UPDATE > FINAL VERSION
Made a few polishing adjustments to the letterforms, along with rounding off of that sharp corner on the 'D', and shortening up the tail on the 'h' loop a bit more. I was originally going to drop the shading effect, but decided it balanced out well with the gaps in the mark.
*Color breakdown > ATTACHED
**Sans serif alternative > LINK
about 1 year ago
Loved the mark Michael. But must admit i don't think the typography fits it well. The mark is sharp and uses negative space as shading, while the typography feels more soft, and uses actual shadows for shading. but i guess if client is happy what ya gonna do! loved folowing the proces.
@Nick - Cheers bud!
@Alexander - Thanks a lot Alexander. RE the cuts, I had and alternative version with solid cuts, but ended up feeling like the shaded version was a better fit. Given the strong graphic nature of the mark, I wanted to take the opportunity to bring in some extra acessability / lightness / joy if you will, via the type.
In any case, here's the alternative version, so let me know what you think? LINK
Love the mark, don't feel the type and mark work cohesively though. It's almost like you've paired a memorable standalone logo with a memorable standalone wordmark and they're competing for visual hierarchy.
@Tony - Cheers RE the mark, and I do get where you're coming from RE the type no doubt.
My primary choice LINK was presented, but they prefered the script (originally presented as a backup). I'd like to think that the first options was well considered and I could probably push for it, thought I haven't as of yet. From the beginning, I've wanted to place the primary emphasis on the mark vs. the type.
While I do like the vibe that the script type lends > Now you're sort of making me rethink it...
I must agree with everyone above about typography Michael, if this should be just a logo and just a typography - logotype, it will be perfect, but together it looks unbalanced :)
Mike, I've had some lengthy discussions with a few other designers around here about the idea of presenting one (the best) concept and only presenting a backup concept should the best concept get completely rejected and is unsalvageable.
This way two solutions aren't considered at once and you're presenting the best solution—which is almost always a singular solution, not two, three, four best solutions. Just one. IMO, presenting an inferior concept next to a superior concept is only doing yourself and the client a disservice. While they won't always pick the inferior, giving them the opportunity to do so is a mistake.
Anyways, I really like the type from the primary choice, I say rethink it and push for that instead of this.
Really nice mark too.
Michael, I wanted to say the same thing as Tony earlier did, both things are great the logo and the type, but together it's just to much for the eyes. Previous type fits this beautiful mark well.
One more vote for the original sans serif. It's a killer mark, but I think it's competing too much with the script (which is also very nice).
You win some you lose some. A lot of the time we lose battles with clients. But I would say that if this was the worse damage they did, then I say well done. It all looks great.
@Tony - Given the opportunity to present the best solution (for a client of any sort), I honeslty agree with that logic 100%. In the case of this project, I've probably been spinning my wheels a bit...and I think a revist to the primary push is overdue. Definitely appreciate the input Tony.
@Charlie - Tend to agree as well.
@Milosz & @Mason Phillips - Appreciate the votes guys.
@John - You can be sure I mentioned that on the very first call. That's one point I didn't have any say in I'm afraid... Sometimes you've just got to work with what you've got.
@Benjamin - Honestly this wasn't a battle at all... It's a probono job for a friend of a friend, and I'm steering the boat in the branding dept. Like @Tony said, if you present a secondary options to a cleint...it's pretty much inevitable that they'll vote for number 2 at some point. I'm really not anticipating much pushback, but as designers, I know sometimes our job is to push harder.
Another vote for the sans serif type. I like the organic type you made, but it does not fit the logo in my opinion.
What is the meaning behind the name by the way, just curious.
@Nicholas - The name is base on the Swedish word "dela" which means "to share".
Feels like the type and the mark are from two different universes. Perhaps it's because the type is so organic and ornamental, and has a lot of rounded edges. Yet, the mark is very geometric and has pointed edges. Maybe if you rounded off the corners of the shapes within the mark you could sync up the two a bit better?
@Ryan - Think I'm pretty dead set on the mark. The type is always going to play a secondary role, so I don't want to bend it to the whim of the type style. Have you had a look at the previous sans serif option? This is the version I'm working with now > LINK
Think type works pretty well , not sure about separate color on symbol, just love one ink version so gooooooood!!
@Michael Spitz The sans serif is superior, in context. I hadn't seen that one yet.
hi , i am Newcomer , cute shot :)
Perhaps rather than compounding the logo-type and mark, a type and separate symbol treatment might help with the issues mentioned above. They could exist in the same brand environment but not side-by-side in the conventional manner.
create typography as simple as possible, you have got already amazing mark, so no need to put it in the shadow :)
keyboard shortcuts: ← previous shot → next shot L or F like
Show and tell for designers
What are you working on? Dribbble is a community of designers sharing screenshots of their work, process, and projects.
Copyright © 2009–2013 Dribbble LLC. All screenshots © their respective owners. Shipped from Salem, Mass. USA.
Follow Dribbble on Twitter