Does anyone try to recreate logos to learn better how to incorporate

>>268175
no

your text placement is too low and the readability has not improved.

>>268175
Noob here, anon, that sounds like a neat suggestion for honing skills.
Off topic: If I wanted to work on something like this what suite software would I use? Web based or local?

>>268175
Yes.

>>268176
Wrong.

>>268199
Wrong.

In the field you will recreate hundreds of logos because A. the customer provides SHIT or B. the customer doesn't provide anything.

In any case, OP, you could improve that logo by losing the hazy glow. That crap glow only makes it less visible to read, and it does not add any significant aesthetic. Also >>268176
Fuck You in particular you dickheaded fuckstack.

>>268175
When I was starting out, yes. Not so much anymore; too busy with real projects.

File: 356238545837.png (857KB, 1100x1125px) Image search: [Google]

857KB, 1100x1125px

>>268175
I do this too. The experience of doing a lot of them has made me much more comfortable vectoring.

>>268209
>sute software
>2015+1
>not knowing about adobe cc

>>268209
I use Photoshop, because I'm an idiot, and I can't use Illustrator. I use the shapes, though, because I pretend to know what I'm doing. You can use GIMP, too.

File: before-after-egx.png (62KB, 3000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 3000x3000px

>>268175

I do this because I'm an autist who likes to wear clothing with subtle video game references

>>268256

>says "vectoring"
>doesn't post a vector image

File: layer1-8333322.jpg (2MB, 3585x3584px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3585x3584px

>>268683
it's a trace done in inkscape. just a vector with blur I was using to make it look like a cutout. I'll post the image. (you can tell it's a vector by the shitty lines)

>>268711
>I was using to make it look like a cutout.
What are you talking about?

>>268734
it's white with black blurred to look like a shadow through the ice... I didn't think it was that complicated, it's just something I did for practice brother.

>>268711
>>268256
pendulum - in silico right?

>>268741
It doesn't look like a cutout

Try to think about how light falls through gaps and holes.

Also, shadows are never black or just a darker version of the color they are cast upon. If you make them that, they just look like dirt. A general rule that you can apply if you don't want to do anything special that looks natural is to make shadows slightly blue-ish and highlights slightly yellow-ish (or neutral.) That's how it is most of the time in outdoor-scenes, so our brain is accustomed to this kind of colorization. Ideally make the shadow blend with multiplication (but this is not possible in inkscape, unfortunately)

>>268789
Yep, classic album, really never gets old.

>>268853
thanks for the advice but I really wasn't going for precision on that. I used the blur as a quick easy way to simulate shadows through the ice. mainly the point of doing the logo like that was to get accustomed to making so many curves and getting more practice with bending lines. Still I disagree that it doesn't look like a shadow at all. I definitely could have gone in and made more complex shadows but for just screwing around in inkscape I think it came out well. I have played around with blue shadows and highlights before so I know what you mean. I made these a couple years ago when I was first getting used to vectoring.

File: 1427121839135.jpg (506KB, 700x786px) Image search: [Google]

506KB, 700x786px

>>268869
You don't understand at all. It's not about "precision" or making things more "complex". If anything, it's about the opposite. It's about doing the simplest possible thing that "sells" the idea to the viewer you want to sell.

Your image does not at all "sell" to the viewers brain that this is supposed to be a shadow. Without making anything more complex (in fact, you could make it more simpler, e.g. remove the blur), you can correct your composition so that it DOES sell the idea.

That's what art and graphic design is all about.

>>268877
Being precise with this would mean making the logo itself less complicated or more direct with a message, maybe a lighter, less black and fake looking shadow, but for a cd cover type of image made with a band's logo, it isn't something I was aiming to impress anyone with.

>>268904
Again, you don't understand at all. This is not about impressing, it's about failing and succeeding at a task, and progressing.

Here is how artists learn & progress

- have an idea for a task to perform (create something that looks like a shadow)
- do it
- maybe at this point it was a failure, if so, go to step 2 until it works
- the technique was learned, from now on out whenever the artist wants to carry out this kind of task (effect, technique, anatomy, aesthetic, ...) he/she will be able to do so successfully

Here's what you did:

- have an idea for a task to perform (create something that looks like a shadow)
- do it
- fail
- give up
- you have learned nothing and the next time you want to perform a task like this or similar to this one, you will fail again

You need to keep re-doing this until you have produced something that actually sells the idea of it being a shadow.


Check out for instance this video on how to improve artistically:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0ufz75UvHs

sycra is a bit of a meme on 4chan, but the advice he gives is sound.

>>268942
Christ man, I'd go back and fix it but the blurred one is the only version I have since I installed plugins on inkscape and it corrupted all my old source files. I did this to get more practice making curves, at no point was I going to show it to anyone but I thought I'd post it as an example here of something I did for practice. I wasn't looking for a critique like it was some logo I made. Maybe analyze something like that when I post it. I'm done arguing I know it looks like shit sorry you're so bummed about it.

>>268942
call me a bad artist after you see something I made with an intention for it to be seen by others. Don't get on ass with me for half-assing a practice piece for my own enjoyment.

>>268953
>>268955

> only version I have since I installed plugins

Doesn't matter, just start fresh with a square or anything else. Once you have learned how to do it, it won't get any more difficult applying it to more complex shapes

> I wasn't looking for a critique

If you post it, you're looking for critique. But I wasn't critiquing the thing you made, I'm critiquing your process. The thing you made doesn't matter.

> something I made with an intention for it to be seen by others

no thanks. "polished turds" as they are called amongst artists and designers are not a good way to judge other artists progress and help them to learn.

> half-assing a practice piece

You shouldn't half-ass your practice, it's the most important thing.

Again, I'm not critiquing the thing you made, I'm explaining to you that you cannot get better because you have an attitude/process-problem. Your learning process and attitude needs adjustment, only when you remove that mental roadblock will you be able to progress. You need to figure out how to streamline your learning process into "plan" - "perform" - "analyze/self-critique" - "repeat if necessary" steps.

It's okay to give up on a piece or technique and chalk it down as a failure if it turns out to be too advanced or difficult, but then you should always re-visit it later (and, you know, probably not show it to others)

But hey, if you want to ignore my advice, up to you. I'm just trying to help you improve.

>>268958
you're critiquing an old sketch I had in a practice thread. I only posted the ice version because you thought the first wasn't a vector, also this is two years old and I don't intend to go re-do the whole thing just cause I only have the blurred version and you say it sucks. I'm working on other projects now and I know all these things you're trying to tell me. I only mimicked the logo in shape, maybe if I was going for exactly what the logo looked like I would have added the same shadows and colors it used. Again, this is like me showing people an old sketch I did when learning to use a new kind of pencil or something, and you're sitting here ripping it apart cause it's not refined or perfect enough. Go critique someone who wants a critique. I'm a first time poster on this board too so excuse me if I didn't know of this "If you post it, you're looking for critique" rule of yours.

>>268958
About your advice, thanks, I see what you're telling me but these things I messed up are basic mistakes that I already know how to correct and improve.

>>268961
>I already know how to correct and improve
So why don't you?

>>269151
see
>>268953

>>268175
This is a troll post, isn't it

>>269262
Why

>>269262
You're fucking stupid, why would it be a troll post?

>>268175
Duh, thats what youre supposed to do, or at least i thought so until i ran into some of these pretentious artsy assholes in the industry.

I used to be in a band, and when it comes to music its generally accepted that the only way you learn is by learning other people's songs. after a while of doing that you have the basics and mindset to come up with something that shows off its influences in an original way

But when it comes to visual arts, any copying of any kind is OMGPLAGARISM and youre a talentless hack for doing so. Not like everything isnt already a mash up of things before it rite?

Iv worked with alot of assholes in my day, but none have their heads so firmly shoved up their own asses like visual artists let me tell u m8

/rant

>>268635
Wipeout HD madafaka

>>268175
I like to do minor redesigns of logos because I'm a douche and some logos are cool but have some mistakes.

>>269379
Most visual artists are snobs.

>>269855
wish someone told me earlier. I don't feel much like posting here anymore after this fuck decided he didn't like my pendulum logo, maybe later on I'll post in another thread and see if I get the same shit.