Logo Mockups

[orljustin]

None of them. The aperture is overdone, and the lens flare was not recognizable and just looked like a bunch of circles with too much space taken up. No one will connect those circles with anything.

I'd go with bacon.

eta: Go with the third. Ditch all the stuff around the "fine art photography" and work on tweaking that font and kerning.

 

[Benco]

I like number 1...for further development. It's blocky and old fashioned but I reckon it should yield a good result. The other two look so so to me, number 2 is OKish but 3 is too fussy.

 

[sm4him]

1. I don't like the font used for the name, primarily because I could see people easily confusing that J for a T and thinking you are Tudi Smelko. I like the aperture blade image, but not the stark red of it. I detest the dotted lines.

2. I like the fonts, if you're going to go for a more classic, "elegant" look to your logo (which, imo, kinda fits with the fine art idea). I agree that the kerning needs work, and that flare...nope, that's not doing it for me AT ALL. I, too, initially thought those were bubbles. I also don't like the flare because, for me, it just seems to make the "o" in Smelko almost invisible.

3. I like the fonts here too, and I like the idea of using your own handwriting--but ONLY if you're wanting to go with a much more casual, informal kind of look to your logo. But personally, I just don't feel like the "signature" logo says "fine art."
Unlike e.rose, I *still* didn't catch on that the little circles were supposed to be a flare--I didn't realize that until I read it in the comments. Partly, that just makes me a goof, but partly it says that it's likely others (especially non-photographers) won't really get that either. I just don't care for it as a design element, really.

#4 is Perfect. Because it's bacon.

Even though I said #3 doesn't really say "fine art" to me, I do like those fonts and I could see using them, especially since it reflects YOU (since it's your handwriting). I could see going with the fonts in either #2 or #3, but I'd ditch the "flare" element altogether and try something else. Maybe a toned-down version of the aperture blades from #1?

If it was me, I'd go with #4 and just eat the bacon. But then, that's why *I'm* not likely to HAVE a logo anytime soon.

 

[Benco]

Come to think of it option four might work OK as well:

 

[PixelRabbit]

Thank you to everyone for the great input! I'm going to take it all in over coffee this morning and return with fresh eyes in a while to play around more, I think I've eliminated the first one and am going to work more with my handwriting perhaps with a capital J now that I can get half decent results (omg it's hard to handwrite "nicely" on the Wacom!)

 

[PixelRabbit]

I probably should have added from the get go that the first line of the logo with .com added will also be my watermark.

 

[Tiller]

#1 looks like the sign of a Chinese restaurant :roll:

 

[Dagwood56]

I was torn between #1 & #3, but finally voted for #3. My problem with #2, as someone else stated, is the "O" in your name becomes lost. I think if someone who did not know your name was Smelko, would see it alone they'd think the name was Smelk. Just my two cents.

 

[PixelRabbit]

Well I totally can't unsee that now Tiller! Lol glad that not the one lol

Thanks Carol

 

[rlemert]

1) I didn't vote for this one because I don't like the red diaphragm on it. To me it tends to obscure the other lettering, and I'm not sure such a 'basic' symbol really says "fine art".

2) This one got my vote, although I didn't think (until someone else mentioned it) how the final 'O' could get lost when someone's reading the logo. I think it's the clearest font and is the most "in balance". I do think the "lens flare" elements are a creative idea worth keeping, but you need to make sure the 'O' they're connected to stands out from them so that it's obvious it's part of your name.

3) I'm personally not a fan of the kind of pastel colors you used here, but my biggest complaint about this one is that it seems unbalanced. Your signature dominates the image, which - while it's not necessarily a bad thing generally - kind of hides what your business is.

4) Here, the problem is the font is too small! If you're going to offer a choice of BACON, then give us enough to make it worth our while!

 

[unpopular]

I like #2, but i don't like the placement of the text below the name.

I'd like to see the "F" in Fine line up with the left-side stroke of the "U" in Judy, the "R" in Art aligned with the center of the "I" and the rightmost stroke of the "Y" aligned with the edge of the tail on the "K" of Smelko.

I don't understand the graphic elements in the "O", but, it may be a issue of taste.

Which logo you choose, 2 or 3 depends on your target audience. If you want a general audience, I'd go with 2, if you want to appeal more to women and families, go with 3. I also like 3, but here the graphic element over "art" is problematic, and could easily be removed entirely and the text tighted up.

 

[ShooterJ]

I like #2 as well... agree, it's professional.

 

[unpopular]

Also remember that a logo is a symbolic icon, it should represent your business, it's purpose is first to be memorable. For example, the Cocacola logo is not highly legible, but we immediately recognize it as Coca Cola because it is strongly associated and distinctly unique to the product.

Because your name will be associated with the logo - and paced nearby on business cards and other promotional material, you don't necessarily need the logo to be highly legible or specifically representational provided that it can be associated with your product and name in a memorable way. Furthermore, by making the logo just difficult enough to read, your target audience will naturally take time to try to decipher the icon which will result in better recognition - this provided that enough clues remain that the logo can be interpreted either from within the logo itself, or using other clues such as additional, more legible information nearby. Perhaps not what you have in mind for your logo, but for example:

 

[PixelRabbit]

Thanks so much everyone, I'm taking it all in and I'm going to start working on it again after the weekend

 

[KrisztinaK]

I'm leaning toward #2 as well. I think it looks the most professional of the three. Though I am not very fond of the extra circles added onto the O either.