Photography Logo's, Branding & Watermarks....

which logo is the strongest?

  • Total voters
    33
Suzy McKnockers

Suzy McKnockers

Messages
477
Name
Jason
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi everyone

I was unsure where to post this so I thought this would be a good start - sorry if i was wrong to do so.

Im working on some logo's for my future website which will also be a part of my watermarks (If i decide to use watermaks) and my general branding.

Now please note - I have no experience in logo design or photography branding at a professional level - all is self taught, so I was wondering if you could help me out. What do you think of the ideas below? Is there any any designers on here that can offer any advice? any additional thoughts and feedback would be greatly appriciated.

This is also the first time I've used a Poll so if we could see how this works out that would be great - Thanks Again


 
ps = please let that this is a low quality jpeg - the originals are done in Ai and a crisp perfct - cheers
 
Hi Chris, thanks for yoru tip Well - im looking to start shooting more music gig (Whilst i know there's not much money to be made in this its something I would really like to do more of) The branding is more about me and what i like to be honest. I Love Northern Soul, The whole Mod scene, Scooters including 60's fashion which is another angle I really like.

Im not looking to grow an empire - its something I would like to do more of along side my full time job and eventually take on more as a full time proffesion as I improve. The main point is - I love photography so why not take pictures of things al also love to be involed in right?

like i said - im not looking to be a millionaire from it but hay if i make extra money to buy better kit then happy days! On top of that - websites a pretty important to any business these days and so accecable and easy to make at a low cost - I may as well have one! Hope this helps – any more questions pleas fire away! Cheers
 
Thanks for yoru input Chris - tbh - thats kind of where i am too actually - is coroporate a bad thing?

Does anyone else have aditional input - thanks guys
 
oops - didnt realise i had to cast a vot too to see the other votes

Thansk for your input so far people - very much appriciated!
 
You shouldn't have to cast a vote. Just click view results. As to whether corporate is a good or bad thing, only you can answer that as it depends on the image you are trying to portray. My only question is does a "corporate" feel go with music/gig photoraphy. It purely depends on what you want to be
 
Something you may want to consider - how small your logo might actually go. Any of the ones with the word 'photography' written is not likely to shrink down very small to a readable size compared with the rest of the logo components. F is probably the strongest one for me as it has the simplest components to it and would resize easily. Less is usually more... Just my opinion.
 
I like the round logo from logo J (the D and P from Dawson Palmer are more obvious), but I like the positioning of the text in E. I'm not sure that you need to have the word "photography" on there anywhere really, as it's obvious that you're a photographer.

They all look professional though :)
 
Hi Bethany the image is done in illustator so i can resize to and desired size and still kep the sharp quality - if i was to use one with the "photography" text id just have to make sure i dont use it so thats its undreadable or just use the logo and no text at all. lots of options to go with. at this stage im just open to people thoughts, feedback and CC's so thanks again - much appriciated
 
Normally I'd suggest that using the term "photography" in the logo/watermark is redundant as it's usually obvious - but in this case I won't, and I hope you don't mind me saying that "Dawson Palmer" sounds like a mid-market firm of solicitors or possibly an estate agent! - have you firmly made your mind up about this business identity?

I don't like the spacing of the "l" and "m" in "palmer" in a-f or h-j, it's particularly bad in j where the vertical of the "h" intrudes into the gap. This creates poor legibility, which will be even worse in a watermark situation.

Versions g-i contain very fine detail in the logo which will probably not be legible on business cards - I know from experience. The script font used for "photography" may also have legibility problems, you'll need to mock this up into a business card format to assess this.

On balance, I think j is the best of the bunch but even that could be improved. It's worth paying a professional for this type of thing. My knowledge is mostly based on having found out what doesn't work.
 
Alastair said:
Normally I'd suggest that using the term "photography" in the logo/watermark is redundant as it's usually obvious - but in this case I won't, and I hope you don't mind me saying that "Dawson Palmer" sounds like a mid-market firm of solicitors or possibly an estate agent! - have you firmly made your mind up about this business identity?

I don't like the spacing of the "l" and "m" in "palmer" in a-f or h-j, it's particularly bad in j where the vertical of the "h" intrudes into the gap. This creates poor legibility, which will be even worse in a watermark situation.

Versions g-i contain very fine detail in the logo which will probably not be legible on business cards - I know from experience. The script font used for "photography" may also have legibility problems, you'll need to mock this up into a business card format to assess this.

On balance, I think j is the best of the bunch but even that could be improved. It's worth paying a professional for this type of thing. My knowledge is mostly based on having found out what doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Thanks Alastar - thats some great feedback - ill take it on board - which ever one i go with id re do the text to make it more even anyway - id place each letter individually instead of 2 words. The "Dawson Palmer" is basically mine and my partners surnames so no wonder it sounds like a solicitors ha ha ha
 
Jason_Palmer said:
Thanks Alastar - thats some great feedback - ill take it on board - which ever one i go with id re do the text to make it more even anyway - id place each letter individually instead of 2 words. The "Dawson Palmer" is basically mine and my partners surnames so no wonder it sounds like a solicitors ha ha ha
Click to expand...

Honestly think you should reconsider the name. If you've got names that fit together well then fair enough, but IMO Dawson Palmer sounds like a mix between a dodgy solicitor and a 90's port star.

If you do start to "get a name" for yourself, you either want it to be your name - or your brand. Having something in between just seems odd to me.

As for the logos, I agree with Bethy. F is clean and clear. I don't like the photograohy font on any of them.
 
The only one I'm drawn to is F. It's bold and powerful, all the ones with the 'photography' script look messy IMO. Also any business that's name+photography on the end gives me the impression of a facebook wedding with nothing but a 500d and kit lens.
 
Incidentally, this reminds me of a situation I once found. (An amateur, not a pro)

He'd chosen to stick a massive semi-transparent watermark right across his images, and promptly abandoned his site. Whilst there were some interesting images there, they were rendered basically useless for even viewing by this watermark.

What am I trying to say?
Branding and watermarking are all very well, but IMHO you need to let the pictures speak for themselves. If you're good enough, no matter what people will try and pinch or pass off your work.
Watermarking will help to stop this, but in doing so you can very easily go overboard with watermarks and logos and loose sight of the pictures.

I prefer a small discrete text watermark/ logo. (And yes, I'm an amateur :p )
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
The only one I'm drawn to is F. It's bold and powerful, all the ones with the 'photography' script look messy IMO. Also any business that's name+photography on the end gives me the impression of a facebook wedding with nothing but a 500d and kit lens.
Click to expand...

Thanks Alan - comments taken on board. This is good stuff - maybe ill drop the photpography - wouldnt want people think i use Cannon ;) ha ha - just messing. i did consider using a name that wasnt personal name more along the lins of "Small Moments" but when i looked at a lot of other photographers most use their own names - but that can be changed as and when - this is more about the logo at this stage - thanks again
 
leezer3 said:
Incidentally, this reminds me of a situation I once found. (An amateur, not a pro)

He'd chosen to stick a massive semi-transparent watermark right across his images, and promptly abandoned his site. Whilst there were some interesting images there, they were rendered basically useless for even viewing by this watermark.

What am I trying to say?
Branding and watermarking are all very well, but IMHO you need to let the pictures speak for themselves. If you're good enough, no matter what people will try and pinch or pass off your work.
Watermarking will help to stop this, but in doing so you can very easily go overboard with watermarks and logos and loose sight of the pictures.

I prefer a small discrete text watermark/ logo. (And yes, I'm an amateur :p )
Click to expand...

sunnyside_up said:
Something you may want to consider - how small your logo might actually go. Any of the ones with the word 'photography' written is not likely to shrink down very small to a readable size compared with the rest of the logo components. F is probably the strongest one for me as it has the simplest components to it and would resize easily. Less is usually more... Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
Thanks Leezer3 - totally understand where you are coming from - watermarks really do split people opinions - i dont think anyone can say for definate to if thare are a good or bad thing. (obviously if done correct) sounds like the person you speak of was kinda over killing it. I totally agree with you on the point that photos should speak for them selfs however if your going to spend decent amount of money on your kit, a website - why not spend some time on branding to make the who package look just that little more polished
 
I would say A or B but with iris effect from G. My reasoning is you could use the first part of the logo on it's own if you wanted at some later date as the DP is quite readable as it is and by adding the iris effect it still indicates photography to most people without the other wording.
 
Jason_Palmer said:
Hi Bethany the image is done in illustator so i can resize to and desired size and still kep the sharp quality - if i was to use one with the "photography" text id just have to make sure i dont use it so thats its undreadable or just use the logo and no text at all. lots of options to go with. at this stage im just open to people thoughts, feedback and CC's so thanks again - much appriciated
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that vectors allow you to resize, but I'm not talking about it being sharp. I'm talking about it being readable and / or 'seeable'. Like for example D...You took the time to put in some nice design detail, but it will get lost if you made it smaller .If you're going to keep it to that size, then great. But for consistency, you can't commit to using one logo, then alter it when you need to make it work once in awhile. Establishing a brand is being consistent. All I'm saying is think about where it's going to be used, and how small it might get, and if it's going to be legible at that size, that's all.

Good luck with whatever you choose, Jason (Dawson?)... whoever you are. ;)

My name is Bethy, by the way. Not Bethany. ;)
 
sunnyside_up said:
Yes, I know that vectors allow you to resize, but I'm not talking about it being sharp. I'm talking about it being readable and / or 'seeable'. Like for example D...You took the time to put in some nice design detail, but it will get lost if you made it smaller .If you're going to keep it to that size, then great. But for consistency, you can't commit to using one logo, then alter it when you need to make it work once in awhile. Establishing a brand is being consistent. All I'm saying is think about where it's going to be used, and how small it might get, and if it's going to be legible at that size, that's all.

Good luck with whatever you choose, Jason (Dawson?)... whoever you are. ;)

My name is Bethy, by the way. Not Bethany. ;)
Click to expand...

Oh sorry on the name oops! i do apologise Ok i see what you mean - thanks for taking the time to input - i really do appreciate it. Comments taken on board I think from people are saying there is enough in there for me to go back to the drawing-board and come up with something that works whilst keeping it in key with everyones feedback. some of the input has been great so far - some it personal opinions which is also v good! Thanks again - loving this Poll tool, great way to see what people are thinking!

That said – keep the comments coming – thanks again!
 
Last edited:
Alan Clogwyn said:
The only one I'm drawn to is F. It's bold and powerful, all the ones with the 'photography' script look messy IMO. Also any business that's name+photography on the end gives me the impression of a facebook wedding with nothing but a 500d and kit lens.
Click to expand...

I disagree fairly strongly about "name + photography" sounding amateurish.

If your a business of one I think it's the best option IMO. Calling yourself "starlight photography" or something like that screams to me like someone trying to give off the impression of owning a bigger business.

Out of interest, what do you think would give off a better impression?
 
UaeExile said:
I disagree fairly strongly about "name + photography" sounding amateurish.

If your a business of one I think it's the best option IMO. Calling yourself "starlight photography" or something like that screams to me like someone trying to give off the impression of owning a bigger business.

Out of interest, what do you think would give off a better impression?
Click to expand...


It's an interesting question. I'd be interested to hear more on this too

Thanks for your input.
 
after taking on the comments, feedback, suggestions - ive made some changes - thanks to everyone that took the time

Ive change the name as suggested - definitly dont want to sound like a soliciter from the 90's! so gone back to my actual name - the Mrs will have to lump it ha ha :)

Made the detailing on the shutter more detailed and the J still works in the logo anyway so thats cool!

I guess ill decide bewteen the 4 in the next coule of days

View attachment 30952
 
Option f made me think of the logo for Beats by Dre.
 
The W said:
Option f made me think of the logo for Beats by Dre.
Click to expand...

Its funny you should ay that W - thats what a friend of mine said... which is why i put the P in there - gonna g with the large one at the bottom on the right
 
The W said:
Option f made me think of the logo for Beats by Dre.
Click to expand...

I knew the logo was familiar! TBH, I would avoid any logo that resembled another, however strong I thought the fresh one was.
 
Maybe I am naïve but the logo on its own with a name would not make me think photography. I looked at this as being on a business card with only that and a web address and phone number I would not automatically think photography?
 
On a business card it would have the text on there too - for things such on here, Flickr and facebook - the logo on its own looks ok i think + those site are titled "Jason Palmer Photography" anway so it will be there to see
 
It looks a lot like the beats logo but why not mix music and photography

If it were me I would use this symbol, there's a j at the bottom, a p at the top (you could emphasise it with a different colour) and to my eye a G in the middle, where it could be positioned in the word photography, very simple that you're a gig photographer, you would have to use a script font (I'd make you a quick example but I'm on my iPad) you Could even hand write it and scan it in, then it is all the same font and you can emphasise the j and p yourself, then in Photoshop recolour it.

This is the symbol I mean and I'm sorry if it's a bit big, it was just a quick search on Google
music%20symbol%202.jpg
 
Hi Jonoooooo125

thanks for this - i really like that idea - could be quite easy to work in to the current design too - will have a play later. Thanks again
 
If I ever need a logo I must remember to talk to you about your cast offs :D
 
Simple is better. No need for the word photography, especially not in a swirling handwriting font - looks like everyone else who uses "BOLD NAME photography" as their logo. Most importantly though, drop the aperture blades. It wasn't a novel idea in the 90s when everyone had that as their logo, and it certainly isn't now.

Besides that, I'd quite like F or the big bottom right one in the latest set.

Wee man said:
Maybe I am naïve but the logo on its own with a name would not make me think photography. I looked at this as being on a business card with only that and a web address and phone number I would not automatically think photography?
Click to expand...

The fact that you'd just been handed the card by a photographer, would probably give you a clue though. :p Or, as Jason says, the urls on there.
 
I have to agree with James. The word photography is redundant. The best brands don't even need words. It will be obvious what you do when they go to the site.

If you like the 60s, northern soul, the mod scene etc, I think you need to reconsider your fonts. I get teh target thing and mods.. sure... but surely the branding you chose shoudl reflect what you are and what you do.

Look at how brands have changed over the years to get a clue as to how to capture the spirit of a time using fonts. Look at the work of graphic designers from the period perhaps. Elaine Lustig, Armin Hoffman, Paul Rand etc. See if you can borrow a style that speaks of the period you're interested in.
 
cheers James, David -i'd have to agree myself to be honest. its a tricky one - you're never going to get it right in everyone opinion. i guess you take a little bit from everyone and stick with your gut. you can always change it in the future anyway i guess. its not like your Nike or Adidas and you have to do a global re brand - 20 minutes in illustrator - DONE ha

Cheers again
 
Just a thought, as you have separated the two into first name, surname, would the "p" in palmer, not be better as a capital letter ?
 
Zimmer said:
Just a thought, as you have separated the two into first name, surname, would the "p" in palmer, not be better as a capital letter ?
Click to expand...

Good Point Tom - or maybe drop the J hmm will have a play later - food for thought - thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top