>>251597 >>251598 if you keep digging through trash, all you will find is trash. None of those logos you have are good, and i think you know that. You should expect the development of an idea for a strong, effective, logo to take a minimum of 20 hours. People that would be willing to work for a SPECULATIVE rate of $2 an hour are not going to produce quality work.
>>251604 to be honest, I suggest you find someone local. A local established graphic designer with a few years of experience making logos. That way you know you will get quality work and have an opportunity to work with them one on one.
You will really need to up your budget though. I've been doing brand logos for 8+ years and probably wouldn't even agree to anything below $800.
But if you are really strapped for cash, there are sites like upwork that you can get some people to design for you in areas of the world where your dollar is more valuable to them.
>>251608 Thanks for your input, I clearly had not clue creating a professional logo was this pricey! Although you have to take into account that we just started as a club so, indeed, we are still quite low budget. I was only trying to get something better than the average crap someone with no experience would make with illustrator
>>251605 Your idea for the SF mish mash logo is good, although the white space between them is a mere hairline width. Shit needs space to breath.
SeaFreeze is an awful font. I thought it was for a nature preservation company or whatever until I came into this thread and saw >>251609. Also your subtitle font looks like a 8pt Arial, Calibri or whatever OS default san serif.
Now that I realize this is sports related, use a color palette that is energetic and not "this is so comfy I wish these waves would wash me up." Speaking of energy, you can exaggerate your logo (and type) with more extreme motion, so it's not just curved but wind staggering.
quick query: i have a mac with retina display and because there are more pixels on it, anything image i create which is a normal size on my retina screen becomes huuuuge on a normal pc screen because the condensed pixels have to stretch out across that screen with less pixels. however, some things on websites are the same size on my pc and on my retina display. yet images i make on my normal pc look like lurry shit on my retina display. how have these websites attained such an image that is retina on a retina display and the same size and still good quality on a normal display? please help
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.