: Critique: Military + Makerspace Logo I'm developing a logo for a makerspace (please search) in Louisiana on what's considered the "Northshore" area of the state. This makerspace has strong military

@Caterina889

First, I think overall this is pretty solid. More so in the one color version. I'm not a fan of the color rendering.

Overall...


The top banner feels crowded at the sides. The "1st" and "BN" need a bit more horizontal padding in my opinion. I would widen the sides of the banner so they are vertically aligned with the tips of the thick wing sections below them. Just the sides though, not the entire banner. I'd also experiment with bringing the entire banner down to cover the tip of the diamond a bit so it doesn't feel as if it was added on later and is actually part of the image. Not a lot, just slightly covering the tip of the diamond. Military patches are designed as separate element so that specific banners can be added for various units under the same battalion or company (It's cheaper to get 10,000 general center patches made then add on 200 little top banner patches with a specific name on them). That's not the case here so you don't need it separated. It'll still convey the same sense without being so visually apart. This is really just something I'd try though. It may not work in the end.
Not totally sure about the mix of serif and sans-serif typefaces. Not that it's bad in itself. "Maker" is serif, the "1"s and "B" are serif, but the rest is sans serif. Not so bad in "1/Northshore" combination but having the "B" and "1" as serifs and the "st" and "n" as sans serifs makes me raise an eyebrow. But may go unnoticed by most others.
The © is interesting and not traditionally part of any logo. Logos either have a trademark (™) or a registration (®) mark. Not copyrights. You don't put © on logos. If you want to note the artwork is copyrighted, add a line of small text below it with the "© 2017 Your Name". In most instances don't place a © within the art itself. The ™ and ® need to be visually close the artwork, but they convey a different meaning than © does. I realize the © may just be you trying to protect images you are posting. In addition, the size of a ™ or ® need to be unrelated to the artwork, or somewhat independent in terms of size. The logo may shrink to a much smaller size, as you have that © now, it'll just be a dot when reduced. It's fine at the current size, but anything smaller and it's lost.
The "1" is sinking. I realize it may actually be vertically centered, but visually, things always "sink" on a background and should be placed slightly above actual vertical center. This is further compounded by the fact that the space between the stars and the "1" is different. There's much more space at the top conveying the sense of "sinking" even more. In short, raise the "1" up.
"Northshore" is clearly horizontally "stretched" or vertically "squished". I, personally would use a type face that fit without stretching and squishing it. Is it one word. "Northshore"? or is "North Shore" two words? Certainly looks like a single word, which I believe is incorrect.


I don't really have much more to comment on with the rest of the single color version. I think it's overall bold, striking, and conveys that "military" feel fairly well. I may possibly ask what the significance is of the, apparent random, placement of the stars and flour de lis is meant to imply. Perhaps the French Quarter or some homage to Louisiana specifically? (I didn't go searching for LA imagery)

After all that being written.... I really dislike the color version. Seriously, anyone with a bootleg copy of Photoshop can tick the bevel and emboss option. Canned bevel and emboss effects immediately cheapen anything. The banner at the top is striking and solid.. everything below it is wimpy, pastel, and washed out. It's not so much the color choices as it is the value choices. The black, red, blue, yellow/gold, and grey is a decent combination... but a solid black and a deep red followed by a pastel baby blue and a pastel yellow doesn't work for me. You need a more bold, striking blue and I'm not certain yellow is a wise choice, at least not so close to a straight Y value. In addition, the apparently "shiny" anchors don't work for me either. In terms of color values it's very top heavy, which is a direct contradiction with the visuals (anchors at the bottom and all). It needs far more balance where color is concerned.

Just my 2¢... I am often wrong and will continue to be. :)

Vote Up Vote Down