Logotype development - critiques required

weemac's picture

Hello Typophiles.
It's been a long while since my last post here (so long that I originally posted in the wrong place).
If it's not too much trouble, I'd like some feedback on the below logotype (currently in development). The 'e' specifically is bothersome.
It has been some time since I worked on an identity from scratch without using existing typefaces and to be honest, I'm a little rusty.

It will be accompanied by a simple icon (concept also under development) that reflects the choice of name for this project. I'll bring that to the fore later in the process.

Ownership isn't an issue as it's completion will mark the long awaited launch of my own creative studio. After reading the 'some things to keep in mind...' thread I have no problem with openly discussing this within the forum.

Here goes.

Initial render of the proposed logotype.

Geometric breakdown of proposed logotype.

James

riccard0's picture

At first sight, l is a bit light while e (especially in the bottom-right area) is a bit heavy.

timaarts's picture

It is always a difficult decision to choose between a geometric concept and possible optical corrections.

(you understand what I mean?)

• Maybe you could try to make the ascender a bit less tall.
• Maybe you could make the horizontal line of the 'e' a bit thinner.

peter_b's picture

I agree with riccard0, the L does look a bit thin, and I would try rounding off the very bottom right corner of the E

Hayes Image's picture

I'd be tempted, to shorten the tail of the E a bit. Wondering what it would look like with the rounded ends taken off the counters.

weemac's picture

Quality advice, many thanks.
Currently working on another set of renders based on the above.

@timaarts
I more than understand what you mean about the geometric versus optical.
I think I'll have to find some equilibrium between the two and set the base concept up geometrically and then make optical corrections to get to the final design. I'm a slave to 'the grid' but clearly this approach is not doing me any favours.

weemac's picture

Next phase, then.

This one is simply the original with the bottom right corner of the 'e' rounded off and the ascenders shortened.

This is an optical adjustment of the 'e' and the ascenders shortened. The height of the closed counter has been increased while the open counter remains the same. In effect following on from timaarts' advice to make the horizontal line thinner.

@Hayes Image
I'm working on another version to test your idea of making the tail shorter and squaring off the counters.

timaarts's picture

Maybe ascenders just a tiny bit larger.

You might also like what I did to the d.

Quick sketch:

timaarts's picture

Hmm I like my idea about the d.

I made ascenders a bit taller, but that I dont like I think.

E looks much better in my opinion!

(the migthy grid also get in my way sometimes haha)

weemac's picture

@timaarts
This is what makes this forum so great.
What you have done with the ascender on the 'd' is very interesting. It actually lends itself well to the idea I have for the supporting mark/icon.
Watch this space for the mockup.

I don't mind the length of the ascenders in your version as long as it doesn't begin to put the 'l' back on a diet. I agree with the previous comments that the original looked a little thin in comparison to the other characters.

I'll sleep on it.

timaarts's picture

Keep me posted! :-)

Syndicate content Syndicate content