 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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] iname com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote :
>
> May I take note that you almost agree with the description I made?
>
Sure, and the "Almost" part is the part where you say "2D". In the past,
perhaps a flat logo was all they could do, but I think that we should be
able to think in 3D now. I can understand if "experts" aren't 3D ready, but
I am.
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?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 2 May 2000 16:50:05 -0400, Bill DeWitt 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?
--
Ron Parker http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
These are my opinions. I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ron Parker" <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote in message
news:slr### [at] linuxparkerrfwicom...
> On Tue, 2 May 2000 16:50:05 -0400, Bill DeWitt 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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>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 agree.
saying that "i'm ready for 3d!!!1!" generates only messy p0V-rAy!!1!
text-shit-logos..
as i see it, the *basic* logo has to be simple black and white outline
without text.
(outline can be perspective, though, but truecolor shading etc. just makes
it unusable)
and "text" doesn't mean letter elements, it means a few lines of words, like
"pov-ray, persistence of vision raytracer".
that kind of things are far away from true logo.
then there could be colored/4d/whatever versions of that basic logo outline.
-alt
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"ddombrow" wrote:
> I do agree that the final logo should
> follow those criteria,
Glad we agree about that.
> but why not leave the initial
> submissions open to anything anyone
> wants to submit as a logo.
I think the reason we disagree is that we have a different idea of what
"submission" means. You think submissions are for any logos, including logos
that needs improvement. I think they are for finished logos only. I say
there are no such thing as initial submissions, only final submissions.
> 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.
I agree that we should do this, but I think it should be *before* the
submissions.
When the logos have been submitted, it is too late to change them, so the
improvements you are talking about should be before the submissions.
I think people can post their logos in povray.binaries.images. There they
can get feedback, and they can improve it. When the logo doesn't need to be
improved anymore, they can be submitted.
> 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.
I say, keep the newsgroups open. The logos can be discussed there. I think
ideas and sparks will thrive anyway.
I hope you will reply to this and tell me what you think :-)
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
