sup /GD/ made this logo for a client it was a simple one h

hate the glow, and the bevel and emboss. especially on the Studios text.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (85KB, 1200x803px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1200x803px

no .. just no

Sheesh tough crowd, looks fine..

>>253820
The bevel/edge is mostly black, which is a good contrast with the red fill. But there is not enough red fill in the "Studios" text to contrast well, and the black gate in the background lowers the contrast even more, which ends up making the "Studios" text hard to read. The same thing is true of the "A" to some extent, because some parts of the gate are so thick and black.

The overall idea is not bad, but it is not readable enough as it is. The most important thing for a logo is to make it readable. Like, really, really, really easily and instantly readable.

File: sage-plant-3.jpg (96KB, 615x615px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 615x615px

ITT:
>OP is trying to troll
>People somhow fall for this bad bait
>>254256
>/mu/tant spotted, NoMeansNo is the shit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m01lPNVv90s

It's a red and black styled athletics icon. Pathetic.

>>253820
That background needs to leave unless it's album art or an icon for an app. If you're not going to bevel tastefully, don't do it. Lose the special font on "studios".

Go the extra mile: trace that A with the pen tool/illustrator and change a flourish so it's not like you just typed the letter A with a font.

If your logo doesn't look good in black and white then it's not a logo, it's a composition.

File: 355px-Kink.com_logo.svg.png (13KB, 355x376px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 355x376px

>>253820

>>254264

unless you're OP please never be a designer