# Logo for C&C



## NateWagner (Nov 12, 2009)

Hey, 

Recently I've decided that I want to have a logo, and brand identity that will be memorable and will tell the client what I am about as a photographer. What I am going for is a look that is at once modern and classic/classy. A bit of an edge yet ideally somewhat timeless. 

I have come up with a few rough drafts of a logo and am curious what others think. These are by no means final drafts, but let me know if you have an opinion. Also, especially let me know if there is something you would keep, or change. 

The bottom one is our current logo, and who knows... it may be the best.


----------



## jessieshungry (Nov 12, 2009)

I like the second tree, but the first font.  Maybe mix them up?


----------



## jessieshungry (Nov 12, 2009)

The tree without leaves seems to intertwine with the "lone" aspect of the company name.


----------



## ::trainwreck:: (Nov 12, 2009)

I like the 3rd one the best. It's well balanced and unified, though I may suggest making the tree and the word photography a tad bit bigger. The first one is good too, and I'd use either one. Not so sure I like the barren tree on the second one though. It's just not as visually appealing to me for some reason.


----------



## NateWagner (Nov 12, 2009)

I will say, I like the barren tree a lot as well, but some of the thoughts I've been getting is that it might not gel well with potential brides. It does get the lone across though.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Nov 12, 2009)

Looks dead and lifeless... doesn't say 'wedding photographer' to me at all.


----------



## ::trainwreck:: (Nov 12, 2009)

N0YZE said:


> Looks dead and lifeless... doesn't say 'wedding photographer' to me at all.


 
Agree. You have to think of it in terms of your clients. You're selling to them, not yourself.


----------



## NateWagner (Nov 12, 2009)

yep, which is actually why I went and did the leafy one. My main concern on that one is that 
1. it's weighted too much on the left, 
2. the font is perhaps too cramped. (I could spread the bottom down a bit... it'll take a while as I'm just learning illustrator, but we'll see). 

What I like about it though is that I could use the tree separate from the words if I wanted to in branding. For example, I could use it on the back of a business card etc. Whereas the tree on the third one isn't very compelling or memorable. 

On the other hand #3 is more balanced, and perhaps more pleasing on its own

Thoughts?


----------



## camz (Nov 12, 2009)

::trainwreck:: said:


> N0YZE said:
> 
> 
> > Looks dead and lifeless... doesn't say 'wedding photographer' to me at all.
> ...


 
Umm you're actually selling yourself to them. In business you have to be true to your identity or mission statement and the logo is a representation of what the company is...I just don't think the bare tree is a representation of a wedding/portrait photographer.

I still like the original(third one) the best amongst the three Nate. Maybe add some pop...colour maybe?


----------



## NateWagner (Nov 12, 2009)

camz said:


> In business you have to be true to your identity or mission statement and the logo is a representation of what the company is...I just don't think the bare tree is a representation of a wedding/portrait photographer.



I agree, the logo is a representation of what the company is, which is part of the reason I am developing a logo. I am trying to find something that describes Modern and Classy/Classic.

I do like the barren tree, personally, but I don't think for a wedding/portrait photographer it's really something that will appeal to brides.


----------



## ::trainwreck:: (Nov 12, 2009)

Just play around with them.  You've done a good job at making them stand out in black and white. Like camz said, play with some color.  Oh, good job with the typography too, I think it complements well with what you're going for.


----------



## camz (Nov 12, 2009)

How about a coloured tree on the third logo and the text remain as is...?

Or you can have a very modern stylish font to represent the modern and have the tree stay as is to represent the classic.


----------



## NateWagner (Nov 12, 2009)

ok, here is a quick version similar to #3 but with the tree and font of #1







my main difficulty is that because Lone is 4 letters and oak is 3, it is difficult for me to make it balanced.


----------



## ::trainwreck:: (Nov 12, 2009)

Capitalize oak, and maybe photography. Also, try [not saying this will work, but might be worth a try] putting the line back in, erase the [roots? ground? whatever you want to call that under the trunk] and tuck the e and o under the tree a little bit more.


----------



## jessieshungry (Nov 12, 2009)

Ah, I had no idea it was for wedding photography, the leafy tree makes sense, then.  As for balancing Lone and Oak on both side of the tree... maybe capitalize the "O"?  It honestly doesn't look too bad to me at this point.  There seems to be thicker leaves on the right side of the tree so that somewhat balances the "Oak" side.


----------



## camz (Nov 12, 2009)

I think your still missing the "modern" part of your message.  I think you have the classy/classic part covered though


----------



## Flash Harry (Nov 13, 2009)

Tree, for a wedding photographer, says nada to me, neither does the word "Lone", I must be missing something, obviously over the pond an unrelated logo will alert everyone to the fact your a wedding photographer.


----------



## NateWagner (Nov 13, 2009)

Ahh, yeah, I didn't choose the name for wedding purposes. I have thought of doing a leaf... 

Here's the question though, what does speak to being a wedding photographer? 
Would you have a bride and groom silhouette? a dress, a camera... etc? One of the things I do like about having a tree is that it is unique. 

I'm not going for the tree telling them that I am a wedding photographer (though I do think trees can be romantic), but when they (the clients) do see it I don't want them to be like "huh???" if that makes sense.


----------



## bdavis (Nov 13, 2009)

I liked your first original idea. The second one was a dead tree which probably isnt the message you want to send for your photography. The third looked a bit old fashioned.

That having been said, here are ways I would suggest to improve the first:
1. Move the word "Lone" away from the trunk of the tree...it's too close
2. The space between "Lone" and "Oak" is awkward, tighten it up.
3. I think the 'O' in "Oak" should be capitalized like the 'L' in "Lone"
4. The tree could be a bit smaller, it's a little overpowering.
5. I think the word "photography" should be right aligned so it's even with the 'K' in "Oak"


----------



## Pugs (Nov 13, 2009)

bdavis said:


> I liked your first original idea. The second one was a dead tree which probably isnt the message you want to send for your photography. The third looked a bit old fashioned.
> 
> That having been said, here are ways I would suggest to improve the first:
> 1. Move the word "Lone" away from the trunk of the tree...it's too close
> ...


I like and agree with these suggestions except for number four.  I like the size of the tree.


----------



## Christie Photo (Nov 13, 2009)

I like the third one...  without the roots/shadow.  Did you consider using all caps for the word "photography" and space the letters out so the word is "justified?"  That what I did with mine.







-Pete


----------



## KmH (Nov 13, 2009)

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

I was also going to suggest a space between each letter of P h o t o g r a p h y to balance the logo more. The third logo is the most professional.

Be mindful that if the logo is not rendered as a vector file (Adobe Illustrator for example) it's pretty much useless for business use.


----------



## NateWagner (Nov 13, 2009)

I actually haven't considered all caps, I do have a version with all caps though, I can add it here a little later. I also have a version in which the tree is to the left of the logo, is smaller and not "eating" the logo. 

The newer ones are all vector files that I'm exporting as jpg's for here. 

I do like the third one, but again my difficulty is that I would like to be able to separate out the logo such that I could use different parts in different aspects. (for example, in examples 1 and 2 I could just use the tree, or I could just use the words, they stand alone. In 3 it all pretty much has to be together.


----------



## Jon_Are (Nov 13, 2009)

I like the third one best, but here's a thought: try using the tree as the 'O' in oak.


----------

