I've been in the process of redesigning my photography business, starting with the logo. Here is my old logo/website that I threw together 3+ years ago when I first started (blegh):
And this is what I've come to after months of messing around with fonts and designs. The plumeria is my favorite flower, and coral my favorite color, so I used it as an icon to represent my brand. My new site design will be much simpler, lighter, brighter, and modern.
I've included a clean version and a version with guidelines that I was using to show spacing areas of concern (between the text and flower, amount of space left on either side of the "Photography."
Now with guidelines:
I tend to go with what's visually accurate instead of what's technically accurate, but I feel like every time I make things perfectly aligned, it just looks off once those guides are gone. So I'm curious to see what you all think. Logos are supposed to be darn near perfect, but are there exceptions to that?
I've been staring at this for far too long and now I need outside opinions on it. Not necessarily major changes, just tweaks. I'm really looking to fine tune it, and since my name is uneven, it does look a bit uncentered. Does that bother anyone? Also, I'm debating on keeping 'Photography' narrower than 'Jessica Shea,' as I did try making it the same width of my name but it looked a bit funky since the hook of the J comes out further than the top of it, if that makes sense. Also, since I divided "PHOTO" and "GRAPHY" which aren't the same amount of letters long, I want to make sure they look evenly spaced despite it technically being unbalanced. I'm using Quicksand as the font if anyone's curious.
In summary, I'm looking for opinions on overall design, spacing and balance, and sizing (ex, size of the text, flower, etc).
As I see it, the article is concise and convincing, and it unites the different aspects into a clear, comprehensive, and coherent, presentation of the concept constructive criticism, or well-done critique, complete with recommendations.
Reading it for the first time, after returning to this thread days after the last > latest post, made me decide to bring this up, as silly as it/I may be.
2) I would ask you to disregard any (parts of) posts that are not directly addressing the design/design options of the OP (original poster), in other words consider nothing but the actual criticism/critique as defined in the article,
and ask yourself: Does every last critique post in this thread meet the criterions of being constructive criticism/well-done critique?