So I'm a photographer by trade, I made this logo a while back, but I want to improve it. Not sure where to start. I still need it to be simple so it's not distracting as a DO NOT STEAL watermark on my photos, but I also want to get the photography point across, as well as my name (kaz) . Obviously in the world of graphics today, I'd rather the form come first, but I suck ass as a graphic designer. Any suggestions on where to start or changes to make to this one?
>>267686
It sucks, for real. Stop trying to be futuristic. It's like, we get it, aperture, we know.
>>267686
I like it.
Just give the Z a little more space and possibly move the A over towards the K just a tad. Basically just make it more balanced and symmetrical. Overall it's pretty nice though.
I swear to god if I see another "photographer logo" with a fucking camera shutter on it, I'm going to explode.
WHY ARE YOU ALL DOING THE SAME OBVIOUS AND OVERUSED SHIT
How about using the viewfinder elements such as the af or the rule of 3 grid for your logo? The aperture is overused and wont stand out among the photogrphy crowd because everyone uses it.
>>267759
I honestly didn't even reference another logo for mine, so I was unaware that a lot of photographers used it. I can't think of many other elements to include in the logo.
>>267762
Yeah I can see how the aperture is way overused. My only thought about using the rule of thirds is that the average person won't get it. I sell photos, so my market is rich normies. I would absolutely consider using the rule of thirds for a Youtube channel where I'm doing tutorials and stuff, because my market would be photographer, who would understand it. I will use that Idea though, thank you.
I agree with the rest, OP. The aperture makes your logo looks cheap. I rather you just do a simple "K A Z" with a bunch of your best photos on the same page if you want to advertise your work
>>267800
What do you mean exactly? I've been using it as a watermark on some of my images (pic related) I still feel like it's beneficial to have some sort of logo, after revisiting my logo I've lost any fondness of it. I see the cheapness of the aperture too. I still want a logo, preferably using my name, because it's short and memorable.
Try using a symbol of the camera that hasn't been over used. Like it was stated before, the aperture makes your brand look cheap.
Maybe the symbol for the flash and incorporate it some way?
also, the K,A abd Z are Nice blocky letters, I think if you just played with the text without out stretching or warping it physically, you can come up with something that will evoke the photographer feel without dumbing your brand down with something cookie cutter (like the aperture)
>>267803
Yeah, I'm definitely going to get rid of the aperture. I'll look around to see what some other people are doing, to try to get some ideas. I guess technically it doesn't even have to be photography related, just a clean looking logo would do. One of the most successful photographers out there just uses his name, Pic related. I'll probably just end up dumping the photography related items. I think that as long as it's clear I'm a photographer, the logo won't have to scream photography.
>>267803
>>267762
What about something along these lines?
>>267807
not him but i kinda like the concept just the circle, make all the letters the same x-height and use a different/bold typeface with more kerning.
>>267808
Should I keep the same style A? Just use a different bold font for the K and Z? and obviously make the lines on the A match the boldness of the other letters
>>267812
i was thinking something like this but more refined.
>>267820
What exactly is your though process behind that font specifically. I know shit about fonts, I couldn't tell you if a font is a serif or whatever, so I'm unaware of their uses. Why would you pick a font with rounded corners vs one with sharp corners like the one I have?
>>267821
it's just more "friendly" and more easy to read i have done watermarks before and the ones with thin type are almost impossible to read.
>>267821
>>267825
I see, makes sense. Same though for making text lowercase as well. I'd like to keep the A with the Circle in the center, because it still has a "photography" look to it without being too cheesy. Do you think it would be acceptable to keep that A but maybe I could round some of the corners?
>>267826
Thank you! I'll be referencing this very often!
>>267833
it could be done but it's not recommended to combine the logo with the text.
>>267834
Why isn't it recommended? Even if it's something as small as a red circle like the above photo, would that be too much?
