Up there

therotter.com's picture

Gone

therotter.com's picture

BTW the company is a Graphic Design Agency....

Hildebrant's picture

Picture 1 is the weakest, IMHO.

Regarding the other variations:
I don't think that the open bottom on the stroked wordmark works.

The "fi" are begging to be connected.I would connect the top of the "f" to the dot in the "i". You will have to raise the "i" and the "l" to accommodate for this. It is ok to have them all level, being that this is for a wordmark.

I would separate the "o" and the "f" a little. In doing so, I would elongate the arm of the "f" to the left a bit. It would be nice to see an interaction between the overlap that is similar to the "r" and the "o". I'm referring to the width of the space created by the overlap. Also, be widening the space between the "o" and the "f" you may be able to open up that top counter a little bit. That counter will become problematic at smaller sizes. Right now it draws your eyes away from the rest of the character interactions.

Lastly, I would separate the "1". It doesn't read 1 extremely well when connected. When you separate it, I would put a base on it. a sort of slab serif, like seen in a monospaced "1". You may also play with slanted and enlargening the top of the "1".

You may also wish to thicken the stroke, just a tad. That may help give a little more stability at smaller sizes.

Hildebrant.

Hildebrant's picture

Nothing more on this?

fontplayer's picture

Speaking as an amateur, for a graphic design agency, I'd expect something better/cooler/hipper/something.

I wonder if there is a way to differentiate Pro to make a play on words, that doesn't look to corny?- just a thought...

I'm surprised the pros are silent.

Here is a simple way of what I was talking about. Excuse the rather phallic looking 1.

(Hey, whaddaya expect from an amateur?)

ChuckGroth's picture

i don't think the pros have been silent. there have been many constructive comments and suggestions concerning this logo.

ChuckGroth's picture

after all, this is the third thread introduced for the same logo project.

http://typophile.com/node/36332
http://typophile.com/node/36178

fontplayer's picture

My bad. I never checked this group until I found the recent post tracker link.

So far the best in my opinion was this one

ChuckGroth's picture

in some ways, it was strong, but the ambiguity of the big red 1 (isn't that a movie title?) is distracting.

ChuckGroth's picture

i think he should work with picture 3 (above), but perhaps remove the dot on the 'i.'

fontplayer's picture

I tried removing the dot, and it looked odd to me. I squared it in this sample. (it doesn't take much to get me to fontplay)

; )

ChuckGroth's picture

really? you don't think the "i" reads w/o the dot? i feel like it's stronger here without it; the "fil" get a bit busy and top-heavy to me as is.

fontplayer's picture

I guess it reads. But I expect to see it, I think. Maybe that is edgy, which I haven't been for about 30 years.
; )

Here it is without the dot, but I had to extend the top of the f a little.

therotter.com's picture

New ideas - thanks again for your comments, which we have found constructive and really useful.

I have posted ideas into a new thread......

Syndicate content Syndicate content