Logo feedback

[schrackman]

Hi folks,

I thought I would throw this out here for some feedback. This is a logo I created for our church here in Banning. Was wondering which of the two you would prefer. I think I already know which one I prefer, but it would be help to get other people's input as well.

edit: why is it my artwork doesn't look the same on this site when I post it? It seems washed out, and that's not how it is. Same thing happens with my photos. I wonder if my monitor is out of calibration.

[Peter_AUS]

Personally I like the first one over the second one. Don't know why but I do.

[jorgemonkey]

Sam here, I'd go with the first one.

[ken1953]

I'm going to throw a monkey wrench in here!! I think I like #2...but #1 is just as good...I really could go either way!!!
Ken

[srobb]

#2 here. Very nice work, by the way.

[JSPhoto]

#2....

FYI - colors on the web can be different than what you see otherwise. There is a program to calibrate your monitor for the web, problem is the photos may look different when off the web too...catch22

JS

[Sebastian]

My only suggestion would be a typeface that you can actually read.

[schrackman]

Thanks for the reply everyone. #1 was my pick as well, although one person at work liked #2.

Sebastian, the font is readable. That's not the problem. The only question for a designer is whether or not the typeface is appropriate. Some might find it too whimsical. Perhaps along with your critique you could suggest a typeface that you would feel is more appropriate. I could easily throw another version together and post it with that typeface (if I have it).

[Sebastian]

Ray,

Impossible to suggest a typeface without getting to know the client and what they want their logo to say.

I personally find it excruciatingly hard to read. One of the other designers here (he does type, I do web) thought the type was readable, but inappropriate for a church. He suggested it would look better on a paint store. The big issue he had was with the type underneath the "Landmark." The thin/thick typeface is hard to focus on, and that is made worse by the decision to use all caps.

I also ran it by my cousin (designer for DePaul), he thought it said "Ludmarr."

It's all subjective, so take that for what it's worth. But I have to ask, what are you trying to communicate with the logo? To me, the dove and warm tones of the symbol feel inviting, but I feel the opposite once I get to the type. It just feels like the beginning of a message that gets a bit confused in the middle of it. That's in large part due to the color and typeface choices I think. That's why I said what I did. Many designers I know poo-poo the idea of using script type for logos in general. I don't subscribe to that 100%, but I do believe that it's incredibly hard to make it work. And I just don't think it does the message here justice, IF I'm guessing the message correctly.

[schrackman]

This particular logo is meant to communicate a friendly, warm atmosphere while at the same time conveying the idea that the church has a truly spiritual mission. Hence the dove and the font choice. I agree that much of this is really subjective. I've looked at logos where a lengthly description by the designer follows and I am left wondering...they got all that from a logo?

I am open to critique but I would also like suggestions to go along with the critique, otherwise it's useless information to me. That's why I followed up on your post. Now that you have somewhat of an idea behind this logo, maybe you could suggest a different typeface that might work better.

[opus]

I like #1 also; I also agree that upon very first glance it was hard to read, but I figured it out quickly. But of course with a "corporate logo" you may want to think long and hard on whether that might be a problem.

I went to http://www.linotype.com (cool site!) and played around with some Adobe fonts to see if I could find anything "friendly" that was more legible. I only spent about 5 minutes looking, but I came up with this. It does change the feel of the logo a little, but maybe that's OK.

I made a sample of the font and placed the window over your current logo, then took a snapshot of my desktop and turned that into a jpeg. Here's the result. The font name is "Salto".

FWIW:

[Sebastian]

Ray,

I think the dove and warm rays speak "warm, inviting" now the question is how do you include spiritual?

I like the Bible Script typeface on Linotype's site. I like how it reads very well at a variety of sizes, it never loses strength in its strokes as you go smaller, and it doesn't seem to heavy as you go larger. And it also kinda carries the "spiritual" message for me. The calligraphic style of this typeface is not overdone, it seems humble, balanced, but still self-confident.

[Peter_AUS]

Having a look at it again, the others do make valid points. It is a little hard to read the main Word, it could also read as Candmark as well, think about the older less 20/20 sighted members of the church and maybe their difficulty with reading it as well.

I certainly don't advocate Seb's version, too typical colligraphy type face which isn't what you are after.

The other thing I noticed on second look is the placement of the two crosses in between the words Missionary Baptist Church, it sort of gives an optical impression of broken words like commas, so it is a Missionary Church and a Baptist Church and a Church, like three different entities not just the one, I know that might sound weird but from a qualified typists viewpoint that is what it reminds me of, also having the cross a bit bigger makes it more obvious as well that it has something to do with religion from a distance too.

It is always going to be hard to get the right mix with a group of people here, as we are all different religions as well, it basically comes down to what your group requires in the long run.

[schrackman]

Kelly & Seb, thanks for the input. Not sure if I want to go with either of those, but I did find one font somewhat similar to Seb's that might work. I'm gonna keep checking out the Linotype site for a couple of other font selections. I am also experimenting with another design (more of a monogram type) and will post that once I have a working version.

Peter, you brought up a great point about the older members. To be honest I hadn't thought about that, but it is a very important point for a font selection for a church. So thanks! But you have me confused on the crosses...are you saying it bothers you or that you find that it adds to the logo. You are right that not everyone will agree, but the reason why I put it up here was to get some honest feedback. For some reason I have more difficulty designing a logo for personal use (and I consider church personal) than I do for a company or business I have no real connection with.

[schrackman]

All right, here is a revised version. I'm still not sure if this is the font I wish to use but let me know what ya'll think.

[opus]

Yeah, much easier to read, warmer than Sebs but not as "warm" as your original ... too much kerning or white space between letters; either that or the stroke weight is just not heavy enough. But I think it would fit the needs of your older members much better.

Actually, I think I would like to see the word "Landmark" occupy a little more vertical space. It seems a bit too small and squat right now (in this font).

[gahspidy]

Ray, i have been reading the posts on this thread and agreed with Sebastians issue with the original font. Kelly and Peter offered valid observations as well, and i think you have done well in taking the critiques into consideration and coming up with a much improved version. While Kelly's suggestion that a bit more vertical space be given to the "Landmark" type might improve even further, your latest version is very nice and looks to be a fine logo. well done, and best wishes to your new Church and Mission.