Sorry for the spin-speak, but it's perhaps best said thus. While keeping existing colors may not necessarily be a requirement of any website redesign, they do provide a familiar context for existing users, and therefore, help with the migration process to the new design.
I would certainly like to see elements of the existing scheme retained or tweaked, however anything goes. If you can invent a better wheel, go for it.
I would certainly like to see elements of the existing scheme retained or tweaked, however anything goes. If you can invent a better wheel, go for it.
I don't see how any of those designs are more printer friendly than the current. I like it, its simple just like this site. If we wanted over-the-top-send-me-into-convulsions-everytime-I-view-the page we would go to avsforum.
I like it the way it is.
Like this one....beautifull and elegant and simple all in one swoop
I like it the way it is.
Like this one....beautifull and elegant and simple all in one swoop
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
In an effort to steer this in the direction we are looking for, I have 2 comments to offer up.
1. The final logo etc must be suitable for print so entries that have moving bits or that cannot easily be produced in high resolution are unlikely to be considered.
2. For a mascot, lets try and steer well clear of any of the traditional pagan gods / idols please.
1. The final logo etc must be suitable for print so entries that have moving bits or that cannot easily be produced in high resolution are unlikely to be considered.
2. For a mascot, lets try and steer well clear of any of the traditional pagan gods / idols please.
My Submital
This image was generated in an vector-oriented program, so it can be exported at any resolution, or converted to CMYK, or whatever. You could even use the source file to get vinyl version cut out for a window or a poster.
If anyone has any other suggestions, but no talent with a drawing program, I'll help you draw it and we can share the glory.
I like the appearance of this logo, but somehow it misses the DIY element somewhat.
geoffrey@nwlink.com
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
This image was generated in an vector-oriented program, so it can be exported at any resolution, or converted to CMYK, or whatever. You could even use the source file to get vinyl version cut out for a window or a poster.
If anyone has any other suggestions, but no talent with a drawing program, I'll help you draw it and we can share the glory.
I like the appearance of this logo, but somehow it misses the DIY element somewhat.
geoffrey@nwlink.com
Re: My Submital
I don't think it has been mentioned before, but any logo will need to be submitted in an editiable vector format (or as implied by the quoted post, it wouldn't met the criterion). Editable pdf, illustrator, eps. Some vector programs don't produce very suitable output (Corel Draw, AutoCad -- at least the versions i've had to deal with) and some here probably only have raster editors, so as long as the image can be suitably redrawn it will still qualify.
And please keep in mind the official capitalization scheme is "diyAudio.com"
dave
geewhizbang said:
I don't think it has been mentioned before, but any logo will need to be submitted in an editiable vector format (or as implied by the quoted post, it wouldn't met the criterion). Editable pdf, illustrator, eps. Some vector programs don't produce very suitable output (Corel Draw, AutoCad -- at least the versions i've had to deal with) and some here probably only have raster editors, so as long as the image can be suitably redrawn it will still qualify.
And please keep in mind the official capitalization scheme is "diyAudio.com"
dave
wopo said:Hi!
Concerning the logo, isn't it better to vote for the winner and than he/she will asked for the original. I prefer to layout in photoshop. With that file you can do all things you want (printing, web). The only disadvantage, the file is rather big.
Wopo
The problem with doing a logo in Photoshop is that it ends up being a bitmap object. This is absolutely fine for web work, but for other purposes, such as making a t-shirt or embroidery, a bitmap image is incredibly inconvenient.
Secondly, working with a vector drawing program, such as Adobe Illustrator, Corel Draw, Macromedia Freehand, allows you to create a logo that is built up out of shapes. The image scales to any size you wish with full resolution, because it is a shape rather than a bitmap.
A good logo is SIMPLE, it has no photographs, simple shapes and colors. If it is to be made into embroidery or a t-shirt it cannot have any fades. All of the colors HAVE to be solid.
Puhleeze. Have you USED Corel Draw? It is the most popular drawing program in the world for good reason, and not just because the CorelDraw Suite is about $500 less expensive than buying Illustrator & Photoshop or Freehand & Photoshop.
I have been using Corel Draw since version 1.0 and it has always had things that it did BETTER than Illustrator. Back then it was that it worked on a PC when Illustrator was barely functional on a PC at all.
It has always had a far-superior interface.
These days, the good interface mostly remains even though CorelDraw is heavily feature-laden. CorelDraw is robust, very reliable, produces good Postcript output (it sometimes didn't in the the past) and has pretty much any feature you would want.
About the only thing that Illustrator does better than draw is as a tool to make small changes to existing postcript files, such as for prepress work. Since Illustrator's native file format is based on postscript, it does a fabulous job of importing raw postcript files.
But CorelDraw has a FAR better interface for creating art in the first place.
I have been using Corel Draw since version 1.0 and it has always had things that it did BETTER than Illustrator. Back then it was that it worked on a PC when Illustrator was barely functional on a PC at all.
It has always had a far-superior interface.
These days, the good interface mostly remains even though CorelDraw is heavily feature-laden. CorelDraw is robust, very reliable, produces good Postcript output (it sometimes didn't in the the past) and has pretty much any feature you would want.
About the only thing that Illustrator does better than draw is as a tool to make small changes to existing postcript files, such as for prepress work. Since Illustrator's native file format is based on postscript, it does a fabulous job of importing raw postcript files.
But CorelDraw has a FAR better interface for creating art in the first place.
really?
then why is it that NO *real* professional design/branding firms use it? i'm not talking about $250 web-based logo-mills that churn out crap, or people that think...becuase they own some software, and can use it (from a technical standpoint)...they are a designer. i'm talking about actual designers that have degrees as such, working in the higher-end competitive field.
it is sad...but in design there is no regulation or certification (as in architecture, law, engineering, etc)...so ANYONE can *say* they are a designer. this does not mean they have the proper schooling or talent to do the job correctly and professionally. corel draw is a tool for the design equivalent of weekend warriors. it is "desktop publishing" whereas freehand and illustrator are "professional design and illustration".
that is not to say that it isn't a great tool for those that like to tinker in design (for fun). i have NOTHING against that. if it makes people happy...i'm all for it (and at a price point that is more realistic for someone that does not draw their entire income from the field). wanna design a birthday card for you relative? sure...corel draw is great. wanna do up some business cards to get printed at kinkos...look no further. but to say that it is a professional design program is a joke.
i have been working in visual communication design professionaly for the past 10+ years, and never once encountered a degree-holding designer that used corel draw, or any company owning it. quite frankly...my original post was more tongue-in-cheek joking about it, but since you seemed to want to turn this into something "serious"...
then why is it that NO *real* professional design/branding firms use it? i'm not talking about $250 web-based logo-mills that churn out crap, or people that think...becuase they own some software, and can use it (from a technical standpoint)...they are a designer. i'm talking about actual designers that have degrees as such, working in the higher-end competitive field.
it is sad...but in design there is no regulation or certification (as in architecture, law, engineering, etc)...so ANYONE can *say* they are a designer. this does not mean they have the proper schooling or talent to do the job correctly and professionally. corel draw is a tool for the design equivalent of weekend warriors. it is "desktop publishing" whereas freehand and illustrator are "professional design and illustration".
that is not to say that it isn't a great tool for those that like to tinker in design (for fun). i have NOTHING against that. if it makes people happy...i'm all for it (and at a price point that is more realistic for someone that does not draw their entire income from the field). wanna design a birthday card for you relative? sure...corel draw is great. wanna do up some business cards to get printed at kinkos...look no further. but to say that it is a professional design program is a joke.
i have been working in visual communication design professionaly for the past 10+ years, and never once encountered a degree-holding designer that used corel draw, or any company owning it. quite frankly...my original post was more tongue-in-cheek joking about it, but since you seemed to want to turn this into something "serious"...
I don't know. Maybe there is this rather insane Mac RELIGION out there. It A key tenet of this RELIGION is only a Mac can do good graphics.
There was some truth to this in 1984. But by 1988, there were graphics programs such as Ventura Publisher that could do far more than Pagemaker. (Quark didn't even exist yet).
I tried to use the PC Version of Illustrator in 1988 or so, but it was too slow and user hostile to be of any use. But CorelDraw 1.0 was a breath of fresh air. Because it was written ENTIRELY in integer math, it was about 4x-10x faster than Illustrator. It also had a deeply elegant interface.
With the release of 32-bit Windows 95 in late 1995, there was very little other than high-end prepress that you couldn't do on a PC.
CorelDraw 6.0 was rewritten entirely in floating point 32-bit code in 1995. It was pretty buggy, but nevertheless it was a vast improvement in accuracy and speed over the last 16-bit version of CorelDraw. The hardware had finally improved to the point that 32-bit floating point accuracy was actually faster than integer math.
Little-by-little Corel has been whittling away various minor deficiencies, fixing issues with import / export filters, making Postscript output more robust and reliable, and improving stablity. On an adequately-configured XP/Win2K system coreldraw 10 and 12 are very, very reliable and professional in both scope and robustness.
Really. Don't believe what the mac religionists try to tell you.
Big design firms use now Illustrator because that is what they are used to. But I can use CorelDraw to produce perfectly acceptable .AI files for anyone that needs them.
BTW, CorelDraw gets a huge amount of its sales from companies that do sign design, vinyl cutting, laser engraving and other hardware-dependent tools. The manufacturers of such items rarely write drivers for any other program, since CorelDraw is less expensive to bundle with their equipment, easier to support since it has a decent interface (unlike Illustrator) and bundled with a lot of workhorse high-quality postscript fonts.
If it didn't work, they would have switched to something else a LONG time ago.
There was some truth to this in 1984. But by 1988, there were graphics programs such as Ventura Publisher that could do far more than Pagemaker. (Quark didn't even exist yet).
I tried to use the PC Version of Illustrator in 1988 or so, but it was too slow and user hostile to be of any use. But CorelDraw 1.0 was a breath of fresh air. Because it was written ENTIRELY in integer math, it was about 4x-10x faster than Illustrator. It also had a deeply elegant interface.
With the release of 32-bit Windows 95 in late 1995, there was very little other than high-end prepress that you couldn't do on a PC.
CorelDraw 6.0 was rewritten entirely in floating point 32-bit code in 1995. It was pretty buggy, but nevertheless it was a vast improvement in accuracy and speed over the last 16-bit version of CorelDraw. The hardware had finally improved to the point that 32-bit floating point accuracy was actually faster than integer math.
Little-by-little Corel has been whittling away various minor deficiencies, fixing issues with import / export filters, making Postscript output more robust and reliable, and improving stablity. On an adequately-configured XP/Win2K system coreldraw 10 and 12 are very, very reliable and professional in both scope and robustness.
Really. Don't believe what the mac religionists try to tell you.
Big design firms use now Illustrator because that is what they are used to. But I can use CorelDraw to produce perfectly acceptable .AI files for anyone that needs them.
BTW, CorelDraw gets a huge amount of its sales from companies that do sign design, vinyl cutting, laser engraving and other hardware-dependent tools. The manufacturers of such items rarely write drivers for any other program, since CorelDraw is less expensive to bundle with their equipment, easier to support since it has a decent interface (unlike Illustrator) and bundled with a lot of workhorse high-quality postscript fonts.
If it didn't work, they would have switched to something else a LONG time ago.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.