|
 |
>> A version of a logo could (and probably would) be reduced in size and
>> quality to be used as a desktop icon for the povray application, but
>> that's _not_ what the primary purpose of a logo is. Logos are for
>> advertising, and you hardly need to advertise a product to someone who
>> has already downloaded it, uncompressed it, and installed it on their
>> hard drive.
Logos are not only meant for advertising.
It is meant for people to associate a symbol with a company,
an association, a product at first glance.
Somes non-profit associations do have one, and they have nothing to
sell.
The way I see it, is that the logo gives 'Pover' a sense of being part
of the POV community, a kind of identity symbol.
>> That's one of the problems with this whole "competition" - there is one
>> camp of people who want the name "povray" (however you decide to spell
>> it) in the logo itself. They don't seem to realise that when you crunch
>> an image down to 32x32 pixels, letters are nothing more than a blur.
True, but there is a general consensus there.
Most of the logo designers display both the name *and*
the symbol for the large picture, and leave only the symbol for the
'icon'.
>> Regardless, given that we're not a company with product to sell to
>> consumers, the _only_ use we have for a logo at all is to recruit others
>> into the povray community. And the only _feasible_ way of doing that is
>> by including the logo on the final art.
>> Now, we all know how pedantic we are about our own works, and none of us
>> want to put some silly little logo onto our traces if it's going to
>> stand out like a sore thumb and spoil the whole thing. That's why it's
>> pointless talking about colour schemes - blue, pink, rainbow, who cares
>> - none of them will ever blend in with anyone's trace, and hence the
>> logo will never get included.
I think that very few of us would include the logo into the final
picture.
The same goes for most of the other renderers. There may be
a little phrase below the picture stating that it has been made with
Bryce, LW5.6, 3DSMAX (or whatever), but the name of the renderer
is very hardly ever on the image itself.
That is not what the logo is meant for.
I maybe wrong but most of the POV community see the logo as :
|*| An icon with which to start POV application
|*| A logo to insert on a web page ( in case of POV-RAY ring for
instance)
|*| A symbol that differentiate itself from other renderers .
Let's imagine that a web-master interested in raytracing wants to create
different links towards Pov-ray, Lightscape, Lw or anything else, he
will
have the opportunity to include the logo ( for the link to the homepage,
tutorials,...)
|*| A logo to be displayed on POV homepage (if POVadmin agrees on it)
> And that's the _main_ problem with this whole "competition" - there
> seems to be a pervasive and narrow mindset that we must only have _one_
> logo which should be used for _everything_.
>
It is obvious that is very hard to achiveve this, but I proposed some
time
ago that the logo designer may have to do two versions of the logo :
- a small and simplified one (for the icon) eg : only the symbol
- a larger "full-detailed" one for the logo/banner eg :
symbol+lettering+...
I know that it may be a bit harder to do both, but that would solve a
few
problems.
> That means if we want a banner that can be displayed on web pages, then
> we design the best banner we can; if we want an icon for the povray
> application, then we design the best icon we can, and if we want a
> watermark/imprint to go on people's finished traces, then we design the
> best watermark/imprint we can. A single logo can and will _NEVER_ do
> all three tasks well.
>
I do not agree.
The icon and the watermark/imprint are about the same size. The watemark
(which I think is useless as it is unlikely to be inserted onto final
rendering) could easily be made with a smaller version of the icon.
What remains is what I proposed a few lines above : Two different
versions :
One for the logo and one for the icon.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
