I agree, making the logo designer try to fit into submission guidelines such
as the ones last round will only serve to discourage people from submitting
logos.

--
Dan D.

Post a reply to this message

"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote :
>
> To prove that a logo by definition is very simple, I think we could all go
> hunting for logos on the internet and post links to them here.
>

     ABC, NBC and CBS

Post a reply to this message

I like your idea. Please post the examples. I would post them in .off-topic,
though, since they're not directly related to POV.

Post a reply to this message

"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote :
>
> To prove that a logo by definition is very simple, I think we could all go
> hunting for logos on the internet and post links to them here.
>

    For a -great- example of a simple logo presented in many intricate ways,
see the SCI-FI Channel logo.

Post a reply to this message

On my Siggraph '97 Demo Reel they have an explanation of how they did the
one with the glowing rings. Pretty cool.

Post a reply to this message

"Ken" wrote:
> Do not attempt to define what a logo is
> or is not. Let the person submitting the
> logo to the competition define that for
> themselves.
>
> Those of you wanting to submit simple
> logos do so.
>
> Those of you wanting to submit complex
> logos do so.
>
> It should not be up to the organizers to
> make decisions like this.

I don't think so.

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.

The logo can be *presented* in all kinds of ways, detailed or undetailed,
with many colors or not, 2D or 3D, with special effects or not, but the logo
*itself* should be simple as stated above.

A good page about how to make good logos:
http://www.turtlesweb.com/articles/logo.html

I really recommend that page!

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

"Nathan Kopp" wrote:
> Rune wrote...
> > Secondly, the reason the logo should be
> > simple is not just that it must be
> > suitable for small resolutions, but
> > also that a simple logo is more flexible.
>
> And generally more memorable and more
> recognizable, which are two very
> important qualities of a logo.

Ideed! That's the whole point with the logo!

I must remember that argument :-)

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

"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote :
>
> 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.
>

    Then why are we even discussing the general qualities of a Logo if you
have already consulted the "experts" and they have delimited what we can do?
I happen to almost agree with your description, but I don't feel obligated
to do things the way they have always been done just because someone says
that it would be better that way...

Post a reply to this message

"Bill DeWitt" wrote:
> "Rune" wrote :
> > 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.
>
> Then why are we even discussing the
> general qualities of a Logo if you
> have already consulted the "experts"
> and they have delimited what we can do?

I haven't. What I wrote was just my point of view.

I think it is valid to use the opinions of experts as a part of an argument,
because usually experts know what they're doing.

But it was just an argument, just my opinion. In the future I must remember
always to make that clear, I guess...

May I take note that you almost agree with the description I made?

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

I disagree with your statement. I do agree that the final logo should follow
those criteria, but why not leave the intitial submissions open to anything
anyone wants to submit as a logo. Then we can say, this doesn't make for a
good logo, then we can ask for what it would look like with less detail. As
it is stated in the article, you can't exactly always define what makes logo
good, but when you see it, you just know it. So I say make submissions open,
it keeps ideas floating around better and may spark someone else who comes
up with a good design.

--
Dan D.

Rune wrote in message...
> 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.

Post a reply to this message