Sorry, but I read Sr, not S2.

hm, okay. I see S2 more than Sr but that’s probably just b/c I designed it. How would you suggest it look more like S2 — and are you referring to all of them or one in particular?

stroke-1.gif looks great.

Why are you trying to put S and 2 on the same baseline? If S would be higher, number 2 would become more distinct without the distracting loooong connection between the two.

And I would make this logo as a full colour one. Stroke would be done as a long exposure photo of “travelling light”. It would make sense and the connecting S and 2 could work even better.

long exposure moving light like this or this one that shows the actual “stroke” weight and texture that I would make.
___________
Robert Koritnik

Reminds me of the K2 logo....

http://www.k2snowboards.com/

@litera:
Actually, I’m not trying to put it on the same baseline. I agree it can be raised and slightly pushed closer to the S. Also, you nailed the travelling light effect. I actually tried to do shots of me spelling out S2 so I could use that as a reference but I couldn’t get it how I wanted. I see how it could use more stroke weight. I’ll work on those 2 things. Thanks.

@TDF:
Oh well, there are a lot of logos out there that look alike. Although, stroke-1 doesn’t look like the K2 logo. But, at least I feel more confident in the readability now that I see a company as big as K2 using the same concept.

Here’s an update. Better or worse than stroke-1? The difference between the 2nd and 3rd is a shadow which wouldn’t really show up in a traveling light but it does help pop the “S” out. And the last one I just did for fun but it looks interesting! =P

The form is much better than stroke 1 - which looks a bit lazy and drunk in comparison. You could refine it a bit more by making the loop to the 2 from the bottom of the s a tad rounder and the body of the 2 seems a bit fat. But having said that I don’t really think its necessary for it to be read as a perfect S and 2 - its kinda interesting as a symbol without the immediate character recognition.

The shadow is unnecessary in my opinion and i’m not a great fan of the lime green - i get web 2.0 rather than arty and professional from that. The colouring of 3 is interesting. looks kinda like crayons rather than light trails though.

Coming along nicely.

I’m afraid if you do it this way, a lot of people will read Sr Pictures.

penn

I like the concept, but most people with illustrator experience will recognized the “default” stroke.

Thanks, but it’s not the “default” stroke. I took one of the art brushes and modified it. You’ll also notice the tips of the strokes are at different variations so there is no perfect cut off. Plus, I don’t see what’s wrong with using a brush provided by illustrator when most designers use a font they didn’t make.

I don’t mind it. I’d still really like to see the real world attempts at making it with light though ... I think it currently has an unfinished quality to it. I also agree about the usage of an Illustrator brush, rather than inking it on paper scanning and creating outlines by hand - but it’s your logo and you don’t have a problem with it, which is fine.

—————
Paul Ducco
Graphic Design Melbourne

Alright, I made a real light traveling version. What do you think :X ? It may read 82 but I can photoshop that or make other versions. But, I just thought I’d post it to show the style.

This is lightyears better than the illustrator stroke version. Great improvement!

penn

I actually like the original one labeled Stroke-1.gif. There’s an elegance to the stroke that the subsequent versions don’t have. I agree with the argument that it doesn’t read as S2, but it is a symbol. Maybe you typeset “S2 pictures” underneath the pictogram as opposed to just “pictures”?

Personally, i prefer the illustrator versions. This looks like a painting done in oils.

The only problem with the original for me is I was reminded of the K2 logo for some reason. Probably a really old version too as I haven’t skiied for years.

Before anybody goes there, I am only trying to suggest something, not design it! OK?

Daniel. Do the S and 2 have to be linked? I played with this quickly and saw that the 2 could in fact be a binder. And yes I thought about the squared thing but I was just trying to disconnect the S and the 2. Connected they really cause me to get nervous, or maybe confused.

Just a suggestion to get you thinking.

All the best
Michael

I really liked the idea of painting with light. I realize it breaks cardinal rule number one in logo design: Must be able to be reduced to black only, but still it is a nice idea.

I agree with Miss Tiffany. I like the concept, but you cannot, IMHO, come out of the S so large. At this point it looks like 82. Subdue the “loop” and I think the problem is solved. The exit may need to be thinner and add some weight to the back side of the 2. Maybe you need to pull back on the top of the S also, so as not to close up the top of the S.

Michael

@ miss tiffany:
I agree, and since he will want biz cards and stickers it may be a problem unless he prints the logo as is.

@typeerror:
thanks for taking the time to mock up something. I’ve tried the s to the power of 2 concept a couple of times. I still keep coming back to the current idea b/c I think it looks slick and more creative. He wants that “indie” feel with a professional punch that the illustrator versions were supposed to serve.

Also, I think if the 2 was any bigger in the light picture it would look more like “82”. But, I agree the s can be modified more.

___

I just sent him a couple of these as mockups. I have a feeling he’s going to choose the illustrator version or say I want to see another idea. I’ll post some more updates soon.

Anyways, thanks for all your GOOD critiques.

painting with light, is a trillion times better,

looks more refined and intelligent

I like the actual light one better than the illustrator version. Seeing i kind of makes the illustrator one look like a smear. Also I read the 2 as a 2 rather than an r like the illustrator version. It might be cool if you traced it out in illustrator so that you had a vector version of it. It may also be nice if you gave it a color, perhaps a medium value so that it can be produced both over a black background or on white paper, perhaps a red?

Also I experimented a bit with it in illustrator. You can make a vector version of it pretty easily by live tracing it with the greyscale mode and setting a blur. You can easily edit it how you want it from there, that way you wont have to deal with a raster logo.

Thanks for the tip Cody. I haven’t tried tracing it in Illustrator yet but live trace could definitely be an option. However, the original size of the picture is over 4 feet. Hooray for dslr cameras.

That should just be a matter of downsizing the image in Photoshop first. The great thing about live trace is that it can be used well on even lower resolution images, though I find that I have to go back in and edit my anchor points because there are usually too many and sometimes live trace leaves jagged edges and screwy corner angles.

live trace.....riiiiiiight....this has got ’quality’ written all over it.

live trace Is a tool like any other. Its how you use it that determines the quality of the product.

What about adding a small loop to the ’2’ (lower left corner) like in many script fonts? (e.g. Inspiration) That would help in the ’r’ vs. ’2’ question probably…

Now that’s what I wanted you to do. YES. That’s much much better than original vector version done on a computer. But as everyone else seems to agree (including you) S will need a change.

@tiffany: Any image (even this one) can be converted to black & white. And since we are in the age way over 60s’ there are lots of logos these days that are used in full colour in 95% of applications. They do have a BW version too but most of the time it’s not used. So in this particular case I’d focus on this soft-light-smear effect and then focus on vectorising it to also create a BW version.

I’d still rather have a nice original logo like this than something not as distinctive.

And as Cody said: you will “maybe” have to think of a negative logo. In your case it will be some colour on white background. Yes. But. If going for any colour I’d make both version in the same one, only different hue to create enought contrast with the background. In this case I’d push colours ot yellow-orange(ish) for black background (which would make it even more light related) and a bit darker orange version for white background. Regular people probably won’t notice the difference created by the change of hue. And it will still work as a uniform logo in both versions.

GREAT CHANGE. May I also say that apart from playing with light I also like the non-closed elliptical shape around it. Makes it very stable and even more perfect. You must have great motorics in your arm to create such a nice and smooth shape. Just curious: how many attempts did it take to get it right? :)

___________
Robert Koritnik