- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 18, 2012 at 10:26 am #101382chrisburtonParticipant
@janmense Sure. First, can you try removing the transparent checkered pattern but leave the texture? Also, remove the texture from the background and just have it on the diamond? I think these changes will make it look better. Or you can send me the file. Whichever.
From there I can try a few on my end.
April 18, 2012 at 10:29 am #101383April 18, 2012 at 12:19 pm #101388chrisburtonParticipant@janmense what about this type of texture? http://i43.tinypic.com/34euqn8.png
April 18, 2012 at 1:06 pm #101391janmenseParticipantthats nice, thanks!
and what about the typeface ;) ?
April 18, 2012 at 1:07 pm #101392chrisburtonParticipantWhat were you using for “jm”?
Edit: Nevermind, I have an idea for you. Check back later.
April 18, 2012 at 2:40 pm #101395chrisburtonParticipant@janmense I kind of like this approach http://chrisburton.me/J13WLj
April 19, 2012 at 3:41 am #101410janmenseParticipant@Schmotty yes i agree with that, this typeface doesnt work!
@ChristopherBurton thats nice, whats the name of this font? but i want to use a combination of my initials in my logo…
April 19, 2012 at 5:38 am #101408April 19, 2012 at 2:20 pm #101463chrisburtonParticipantThe typefaces are Koziupack by Sudtipos and Gotham by Hoefler & Frere-Jones.
The fonts would cost about $250 combined to purchase.
Sorry I couldn’t help.
April 19, 2012 at 6:38 pm #101447joshuanhibbertMemberSorry to jump in so late, and good work on all of the iterations, but I still feel that the very first version is the best. It has so much more personality and character than any of the later versions. Why did you decide to go in a completely different direction?
April 19, 2012 at 7:21 pm #101432chrisburtonParticipantFrom the feedback. Essentially in his first approach, it was easier to distinguish the script as “jn”. Also the typeface below certainly isn’t complimenting it as stated above.
Perhaps it could help with weight variations but still…
April 19, 2012 at 7:49 pm #101433joshuanhibbertMember@ChirstopherBurton I agree, but considering that @janmense’s name will always be shown next to it, it’s not that big of a deal. I guess it depends on what @janmense’s main focus is, to have a recognisable mark, or to clearly display his/her initials. Also, playing with the way the ligature currently connects could improve how recognisable the letters are. And yes, the typeface certainly needs to be changed.
April 19, 2012 at 8:49 pm #101428chrisburtonParticipantHaha, it is when it clearly looks like an “n” and his last initial is obviously an “m”. Makes the monogram confusing.
“Also, playing with the way the ligature currently connects could improve how recognisable the letters are.” – Yes, pretty much what I said here with more additions.
April 20, 2012 at 11:52 am #101477smutekMemberThe first mark (scribble) was hands down the best of the bunch, in my humble opinion.
April 20, 2012 at 8:28 pm #101514chrisburtonParticipant -
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Other’ is closed to new topics and replies.