 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill DeWitt" wrote:
> "Ron Parker" wrote:
> > > One of the best logos, for the most
> > > classy product in the world, for
> > > almost a hundred years, has been 3D.
> > > Can you guess what I am thinking of?
> >
> > Rolls-Royce hood ornament?
>
> http://www.ktsmotorsportsgarage.com/ault98/pages/rolls-spirit.html
>
> Absolutely. Although they call it a
> "mascot" it is far more recognized than
> the 'RR' logo they also use.
They call it a mascot. I do too.
You say it is a logo. Your only argument is that it is more recognized.
Why does the fact that it is more recognized make it a logo?
A mascot may be more recognized than a logo, but that doesn't mean that the
mascot *is* a logo.
I have yet to see a big, well-known company who has a logo that is not
presentable and easily recognizable in black and white (with no shades of
gray).
Greetings,
Rune
---
Updated April 25: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
< lurk mode=off>
Hi everybody!
Just for the record : I agree with Rune, Peter J. Holzer and others. I think
a good logo should be simple. A simple shape, easily recognised,
good-looking in low-res and low colour.
Now, just because POV could have an official logo does not mean you could
not use your own favorite - or so I hope :-)
Povingly
Philippe
</lurk>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Philippe Debar
Subject: Re: PLC: General qualities of the logo.
Date: 4 May 2000 11:20:31
Message: <3911953f@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
(read in the London tube)
"Experts are not more right than other people,
They are wrong for more complicated reasons."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Philippe Debar
Subject: Re: PLC: General qualities of the logo.
Date: 4 May 2000 11:20:36
Message: <39119544@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <run### [at] iname com> wrote in message
news:390f10d2@news.povray.org...
> Would you submit a hand drawn image for the IRTC ? No.
> But what if was a really really nice hand drawn image?
> No, it wouldn't be accepted because the IRTC is for rendered images only.
>
> Likewise in the logo contest; it is for logos only. A logo is not just a
> word that can mean anything we want it to mean. All the experts agree that
a
> good logo is a simple piece of 2D graphics consisting of a few colors
only,
> and it must work in just black and white too. Since we want to find a good
> logo for POV-Ray, the submitted logos should follow these criteria.
I think that using this conversation to potentially reject entries is a very
bad idea. This thread is useful as a guideline for future entrants and
future voters. But it should not become rules. The "simpleness" rule for
logos is like compositional rules for pictures : guidelines for those who
need/want them. such rules are made to be broken. Why reject a priori a
great logo just because it "does not follow the rules"? Sure, generally
speaking I think that simpleness is a logo must-be. "generally speaking".
Everybody submitting a logo now know that I generally find simple logos more
attractive, and hence know somewhat how I will vote. They will not be able
to say "I didn't know". But it stops right there. If a complex logo is
better than the other ones, it will get my vote.
Povingly
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
okay, point taken. I guess I was thinking of a slightly different
submissions process.
--
Dan D.
"Through the Eye of a Needle"
http://fbox.vt.edu/D/ddombrow/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
