Subscribe by RSSAdding Gold To Your Logo, YIKES!
Published on November 15th, 2007
No, this is not a tutorial. As a designer, I am concerned about what the general masses are learning about “design.” Free clipart. Free fonts. Free “design” software. Ugh, it is no wonder I constantly find myself cringing.
I recently attended a “Photoshop CS3 Power Tour” by Kelby Training. Overall, the seminar was useful — CS3 has some great new features. However, part of the way through the third class, I glanced at my coworker who was looking back at me with the same horrified expression that I imagine I had on my face.
“Customized Type Treatments for Logos”
You can imagine the quality of logo design tips taught in a Photoshop seminar. I do not think Photoshop is a good tool for dealing with vector art or type. I am also not a fan of three-dimensional logos in general. As a result, it makes me sad when somebody teaches a room of 300-400 people how to set type, deform it and then make it look like it was chiseled out of gold in Photoshop as a “customized type treatment for logos.”
Okay, I admit it, somewhere down the line I MAY come up with a need for such an effect. However, I do not see a need for it when designing a logo. I wonder how many people walked out of that class thinking, “Cool, I finally know what I’m going to do for my personal logo.”
If you do not understand why this bugs me so much, here you go:
- Creating a logo in Photoshop can bite you in the ass later. I am not a fan of logos built in pixel-based software. What if you need to make the logo really big for a sign, banner or billboard? When you increase the size, the logo will become pixelated. If you start with a vector logo, resizing issues should never be a problem.
- A logo should look good in black and white. At some point, you will print it that way. Maybe you will need to fax it to somebody, maybe you cannot afford to pay for full-color printing all the time or maybe somebody wants to make a copy of a letter you wrote on your company letterhead.
- A logo should look good really small. If you think you can make the above image one-inch wide and still understand the gold effect, I can tell you right now, you are wrong.
- You should not deface a font without a good reason. If you were paying attention, you probably noticed I stretched the ascenders and some of the serifs in the Gold logo. I only did it because it was one of the steps he showed us in the seminar. When I see stuff like this, I find myself wondering why the designer did it. Sometimes it is necessary to help with kerning. Sometimes it helps the design, but doing it just because you can really irks me.
- Beveling, embossing and drop shadows are my nemeses. Instances do exist where these treatments make sense. However, every wanna be designer seems to believe these are the coolest things ever invented when it comes to “design.”
These are just a few of my design pet peeves. What are some of yours? Have you successfully used the above technique in one of your designs? If so, I hope you will share.
I couldn’t agree more with everything you’ve said here, Karly. From a design perspective that’s just appalling, and the elongated ascenders and serifs are just adding insult to injury.
That said, though, I did see this type of effect used well once. I worked in the children’s book division of Random House years ago, and we did a whole series of X-Men books. The X-Men logo was rendered with a really cool metal effect — it looked like beveled chrome. At the time, though, Photoshop was absolutely not capable of creating those kinds of effects (this was before Photoshop had layers!), and it took a lot of skill on the illustrators’ part to make it look real. So maybe it isn’t quite to same…
Posted on November 15th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Leslie,
I can definitely see a chrome effect working well on the X-Men logo. Though Photoshop makes the effect really easy, I wonder if some things work better when they are rendered with more care. An illustrator would decide where the highlights and lowlights should be instead of randomly letting them fall in Photoshop.
Posted on November 15th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Hi Karly,
I’m a french designer and I’ve just found your post accidentally. The less I can say is I’m completely agree with your conception of logotypes. In my opinion, people who don’t agree are amateurs
Concerning photoshop effects, I think illustrators and designers should be more careful about “all in one” effects. Creation is a matter of decision and inspiration, not a matter of mechanical production. In one word : execution is not creation !
I should add that a computer is only a tool. That’s why I really liked your demonstration of sketching on this blog. I believe that nothing can be created without a sketch first. In order to extract ideas laying deep in your brain, and have an efficient creative flow !
Best regards,
Vincent
Posted on April 20th, 2008 at 11:01 am
I agree with your points in general, but it’s important to note that the world is changing and that some of those rules come from a world where the primary method of viewing a logo was in print.
These days, there’s many identities that are used primarily in digital format and that is why you see such a rise of 3D logos. Indeed, I just did a design for a client for a logo that is unlikely to ever be printed, so how it appears online is key. In addition, since it’s just for the site, normal restrictions don’t apply and I explored creating something larger and more of a design feature than a traditional logo might be.
Those rules you mention are a good guidelines for any designer, but it’s that’s all the should be. Good designers know when it’s ok to break the rules.
Posted on April 20th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Vincent,
Thank you for stopping by. I whole-heartedly agree. Very well-said.
Kevin,
I agree that rules can be treated simply as guidelines and aren’t necessarily hard and fast. I also understand that digital graphics have dictated a change in how people want their logos to look these days. But I question what might happen when someone’s online business takes off and they want to include the logo on their website on a business card or an invoice. Then again, I also understand that there are many logos out there that aren’t associated with conducting business, just simply for somebody to have a look that represents them while they write about what they did the night before. In such a case, I can see why they wouldn’t be concerned about the possibility of ever printing their identity.
Posted on April 21st, 2008 at 9:23 am
Thanks for the reply, but I think you’re showing you’re own element of bias there with this line: “I question what might happen when someone’s online business takes off and they want to include the logo on their website on a business card or an invoice.” Kind of implies that’s when they should get a ‘proper logo’ one they’re successful, as if how a logo appears on paper is the defining measure of success.
Does YouTube need a ‘proper logo’? I do agree in principal about what you’re saying, but if the web or TV is where 99% of your customers will see your logo then maybe that should make us look at those rules a little differently.
Posted on April 21st, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Hi Karly,
It’s my pleasure to see I’m not the only one thinking that way about logos
Hi Kevin,
Your opinion is very interesting but let me add something about “simple” logos.
A logotype is made of 2 constituents in my opinion : concept and emotion. Concept is essential for the message you want to deliver to your target. And the most significant way to reach this goal is the shape. From prehistoric rupestral paintings to egyptian hieroglyphs, until Nike’s or Apple logos, the most efficient and durable messages come with shapes. It’s a fact : a logotype is, before everything else, a sign. Like #, =, ?, and so on.
Of course, you’re right, medias are currently changing very deeply (especially with web revolution) but logos are still logos : signs expressing concepts. And colors are only conventions added to this concept, precizing it, making it more efficient and even punchy !
That said, the other part of logos’ meaning is emotion. And here we can say emotion is hungry of effects, of funny gimmicks, of harmonious or tranchantes colors, and so on.
Exactly because it’s a sign, easy to remember.
I think it’s a very important thing to take in account ! But a general problem I see in a lot of logos is that emotion replaces the concept. I can see a beautiful effect, a great mascot, a delicious harmony, … but it will be impossible for me to remember this logo 1 week later… On the contrary, just ask me to draw the swoosh of Nike and I do it with my eyes closed. Of course, everybody knows this logo now so it’s easy. But why everybody knows it actually ?
Never forget it : a logo is a sign. It has to be versatile : readable in colors (with colors and effects) AND in black & white. Animated AND static.
And above all : simplicity it the key in efficient design.
Remember hieroglyphs
Ok well, sorry for being so long and maybe a bit sententious but I really wanted to express my feeling about it. I hope you understand it that way and I didn’t hurt you ! I’m only really passionated
Thank you for reading me !
Best regards,
Vincent
Posted on April 21st, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Kevin,
I’m sorry to take so long to reply. My answer to you is that most companies develop several versions of their logo for different applications. Along with that, they often develop a logo usage guide. I did a google image search on the You Tube logo and found at least three versions of it. Not all of them were three dimensional.
Vincent,
Very informative response and I agree with you fully. Thank you for reminding us about hieroglyphs too. I recently read about how the shapes of our letters are technically logos themselves as most of them are simplified versions of pictures that started with a given letter’s sound in the Phoenician language.
Posted on May 15th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Hi Karly !
Thank you for your interest about my vision of logos
I really agree with what you red ! I think fonts are an essential part of design and it’s true : letters are logos ! We only need to see them to identify and interpret them in a blink of an eye ! Personally, it’s my ultimate goal : to design a shape people would understand almost instantly ! Especially for logos, of course
About Phoenician language I didn’t know that ! Thank you very much for this information !!! I won’t look at letters the same way now !
See you !
Vincent
Posted on May 18th, 2008 at 3:06 pm