Please critique logo.

[awhitt99]

Yes, it is indeed another logo design critique:)

 

I am both a full-time graphic art student, and I work at a photo studio. The

business is a small family owned place, and has its ups and downs. In the past

couple of years I have developed a fine-tuned critical eye for marketing styles

and what a company's logo says about their identity. The studio I have worked

for the past 6 years has always struggled to make much of a profit, and even

though we do a fair share of weddings, we could always get more and rarely get

the higher-end clients. I am afraid that our identity, logo, and marketing

aesthetics (although fine i'm sure for 1976) is screaming budget-oriented

low-end, and appealing to those brides as such. Now in the slow-season, I

finally talked my boss into letting me try my hand at revamping our image, and

here are the preliminary results. My goal was to be of course more upscale and

elegant, and instead of using just typography, playing with some kind of visual

branding element as well. I have not presented these to my boss yet, and would

like to get input from other pros with your finely trained critical eyes.

 

Thanks so much :)

 

Allison<div></div>

[tonylarcombe]

I like them all ! can you do mine ;-)

 

I think my personal favorite though is a close call between number 1 and number 2.

 

Tony.

[jfr]

I like #3 and #4 best. #3 for the cleanliness and #4 because it's round and not as cluttered as the other ones.

[awhitt99]

Thanks everyone for the input. I agree looking at #2 that the "photographic" is a bit illegible. The few people I have showed these to have also been partial to #'s 2 and 3, and suggested possible making these work together, such as #2 for business cards, and ads, and brochures, and using #3 for something like letterhead, stationery, envelopes, etc.

 

Heather, I'm glad you looked at the site. It is pretty outdated, and that was actually redone less than a year ago. I am taking some web design classes this semester, and this summer when I'm back to full-time, that will be my next big project.

 

Thanks again everyone.

[jay_runquist1]

#2 and #3 are my favorites. My only concern is legibility in #2 with "photographic". The type treatment on #3 is great in AZZARA and needs a bit more massaging in the kerning with photographic.

 

The rest are good but not as "solid" as the rest. I'd keep pushing #3 and #2 to try and see if they can become a bit tighter and flexible when it comes to multiple media formats.

 

Great start!

[andrea_robinson]

You can do mine too!! =)

[epicuriouz]

I'm not a pro with a critically trained eye, but as a consumer who would tend to be attracted to a higher quality brand image, I like #2. I think that the colors and the elegance would lend themselves well to a portfolio on the web, and agree that the current website could use some updating. Kudos to you for taking the initiative with your boss! Good luck in presenting your ideas. They look great!

[teresaberg]

I love #2.... if you are looking for a sophisticated logo to appeal to the higher income market, I think that's the one!

Nice work!

[stephen dohring]

I agree I like number 2 - One thing and I don't know - you don't see "photographic" as much - makes me think of a store or lab not so much as photography - that might be your next question.

[lightbugged]

Hi Allison,

 

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

 

I like #4 and #5 since they're round with a blue color value. These are two of my yet-undone-logo requirements. As far as I know, nobody I know is following that logo design approach. I am not a design guru and I don't pretend to be one but let me share what I've realized about this subject.

 

I believe that your logo might very well become your trademark/icon. For instance, it doesn't even have to feature the "photo", "photography" or "photographic" term spelled into it. As people get acquainted with your logo and your photography they wouldn't even be required to "read" your logo. They would just recognize it. They'd know they're talking about Azzara.

 

When something becomes your trademark, people identify you by what your icon/logo means to them not by what it says.

 

Think about eBay, does it have the word "auction" on it? No, just by looking at those colors you know what you're referring to.

 

Think UPS, do you know what's their business just by looking at their brown & gold shield? I do.

 

The best example is Nike. Do you need to know anything else to recognize what their logo means? I don't think so.

 

So my advice. Be unique, be distinctive, like your photography, like your passion. Put yourself in a unique position to distinguish yourself from the rest and people will treat you and your creations with the same distinction.

 

Don't do what everyone else does. Be unique! Most of the time, it yields better results.

 

=) Wishing you success...

 

-Vlad

[picturesque]

#2 or #5. You realize that putting a facade over the place alone won't really work too well. You have to revamp the whole marketing approach, all the way back to defining your target market and designing new products for that market, which may involve more than your studio owner wants to take on, since many times, everything, including the images themselves and the sales approach, needs to be re-tooled.

[natasha_canales]

#4 and #2. I personally tend to like round shapes but if rectangular is more desirable - then #2.

[cindy_duncan]

Number two is fantastic. Do mine?

 

Cindy

[don_haines1]

I must disagree with most of the other posters. I have had some expereience in the sign business and learned that a sign (or logo) should be easy to read and shouldn't be too complicated. I think #3 jumps out and really catches the eye and the viewer doesn't have to look too hard to get the message.

 

That's why I like #3

 

But that's just my opinion ;-)