# Need some logo work



## MikeH (Sep 24, 2009)

So I recently decided to start up my own booking agency just to get myself some extra cash and to be more involved with the Cincinnati scene. I've already booked my first show for a friend's band with The Red Chord in November. My question is could anyone do a quick logo for me in photoshop? Nothing fancy or too intricate, just something that looks a bit classy and professional. The name I'm going with is going to be Divinity Booking Agency. And if you could think of something that would work better, let me know. I'm open to ideas. I just want to sound professional so people don't just take me as some kid who doesn't know what he's doing.

Thanks in advance dudes.


----------



## DarkKnight369 (Sep 24, 2009)

I wouldn't advise having someone whip a quick logo up in photoshop. Vector logos(created in Illustrator) are where its at, especially if you want to continue with this and grow. Logos created in photoshop are rasterized, and a fixed size. If someone really doesn't know what they are doing, you will end up getting a logo that is web resolution and be worthless for anything print. Additionally, people who use photoshop for logos tend to like to play with the screen effects, which is also completely worthless for print. 

If you can find someone to do a pro, vector logo for you free of charge, that is great. Especially if the goal of this is to turn this into a serious business. If it doesn't matter that much, and you are just doing it for fun, then I guess it doesn't matter all that much.


----------



## Xaios (Sep 24, 2009)

DarkKnight369 said:


> I wouldn't advise having someone whip a quick logo up in photoshop. Vector logos(created in Illustrator) are where its at, especially if you want to continue with this and grow. Logos created in photoshop are rasterized, and a fixed size. If someone really doesn't know what they are doing, you will end up getting a logo that is web resolution and be worthless for anything print. Additionally, people who use photoshop for logos tend to like to play with the screen effects, which is also completely worthless for print.
> 
> If you can find someone to do a pro, vector logo for you free of charge, that is great. Especially if the goal of this is to turn this into a serious business. If it doesn't matter that much, and you are just doing it for fun, then I guess it doesn't matter all that much.



I am compelled to agree with the above post. While I myself make logos in Photoshop sans the rasterization and pretty well filter-free, Photoshop is an attractive nuisance for people in the same demographic as your typical 14 year old Counter-Strike script kiddie, ei the "ZOMG THAT'S 1337 DAWG!!1!one" crowd. Not exactly the most professional bunch. Illustrator tends to attract far more professional and seasoned graphics designers.

Granted, you'll want to judge people's work on its own merits. Just a warning though, you're far likely to get a logo featuring ugly beveled text with difference clouds in the background if you ask for a photoshopped logo than one made in Illustrator.

Brainstormed a bit, came up with the following:







Obviously more concept than anything, but if you like that direction, we can talk.


----------



## DarkKnight369 (Oct 5, 2009)

That's nice.


----------



## Daemoniac (Oct 6, 2009)

^ I both agree and disagree with the above posts. As long as the PDF created in photoshop is big enough, and is flattened/rasterized, it should be fine to go to print so long as its resolution is good, or you have a separate logo for each application (a web-sized one, a poster sized one etc.. etc..). (i'm currently working in a print shop )

I'd also both agree and disagree with the Illustrator point. While i personally love it as a designer, NONE of the designers i'm currently working with use it unless they absolutely have to. They use InDesign instead, as it takes care of your layout as well as doing just about everything Illustrator does.

My point i guess is that it doesn't matter what program they use, as long as they know what they're doing.


----------



## darren (Oct 6, 2009)

As a professional graphic designer, i will say that you should ALWAYS have a vector version of your logo, period. Photoshop is not a design tool. It is a photo editor. Photo. Shop. See? Yes, it does matter what program you're using. Because a trained designer would not use Photoshop for designing a logo.

And if you're serious about your business, you should think about hiring a professional designer to work with you to create your company's image, rather than just trying to get "a quick logo in Photoshop for free".


----------



## Daemoniac (Oct 6, 2009)

darren said:


> And if you're serious about your business, you should think about hiring a professional designer to work with you to create your company's image, rather than just trying to get "a quick logo in Photoshop for free".





This here, good advice.


----------



## DarkKnight369 (Oct 6, 2009)

Demoniac said:


> ^ I both agree and disagree with the above posts. As long as the PDF created in photoshop is big enough, and is flattened/rasterized, it should be fine to go to print so long as its resolution is good, or you have a separate logo for each application (a web-sized one, a poster sized one etc.. etc..). (i'm currently working in a print shop )
> 
> I'd also both agree and disagree with the Illustrator point. While i personally love it as a designer, NONE of the designers i'm currently working with use it unless they absolutely have to. They use InDesign instead, as it takes care of your layout as well as doing just about everything Illustrator does.
> 
> My point i guess is that it doesn't matter what program they use, as long as they know what they're doing.



A while back I used to think photoshop logos were fine as long it was big enough at the correct resolution for print. If all you ever use it for is CD art, flyers, and web work, this would be true. Problem comes in if you want to do anything else. Say you want to make a backdrop for your band to use on stage with your logo on it, the photoshop logo probably won't cut it. While its true you can technically go down to as low as 100dpi for large displays, as they are viewed at a distance, it still looks like crap if you get up close. Vector shines in this area because it can resized to any dimensions and keep sits quality. 

Using a photshop logo exclusively can also bite you in the ass if you screen print t-shirts. Some shops might do the conversion for you, but the ones I have used required vector art for their shirt screen printing. It has personally bit me in the ass when I went to replicate a CD run for a past band of mine. I went through disc makers, and while they will take rasterized logos for duplicated runs, they required vector art for their replication runs because the discs are screen printed as opposed to the thermal printing or whatever else they use.

InDesign is not a program intended for logo creation. Illustrator is much better at this and works much more efficiently doing so. InDesign is for print publications, and in recent versions, online magazines/catalogs. The core functions of InDesign are well suited to multiple page documents with a lot of text. If I am not designing anything with lots of text, or multiple page, I use Illustrator. Most notably I will use it for posters, stickers, large display designs, CD/DVD face designs, etc. You can export InDesign files to PDF, but if you want to send a workable version you have to package all of the fonts and images to go along with it. Using Illustrator, you can create outlines of all the text, eliminating the need for others to have the same font. You can also embed the images if need be to keep it all to one workable file. In addition to that, you can easily save and resize your project to a web friendly document.

Discounting Illustrator is a joke, and people who chose to use photoshop or InDesign are doing so as a crutch. They are not familiar enough with Illustrator to be dangerous in it and they are clearly afraid, or too lazy to learn.

Now, you may currently work in a print shop, but that in no way makes you an expert. I have also seen/dealt with many "designers" who were just flat out dumb. They had some design skill, but they were completely computer retarded and barely knew the software they were using. Much of what you have said frankly lacks credibility.

I would not consider myself an all out expert, as there is always something to learn. However, I have experienced enough to know what I am talking about. I am a professional multimedia designer/specialist/artist/whatever you want to call it. I have a Bachelor's degree in multimedia and 5+ years of professional experience under my belt working for one of the top 100 brands in the world. In my career I have done everything from working with video, flash development, DVD authoring, web design/development, to designing many various print materials. Throughout my career I have designed everything from custom painted/branded iPods, DVD/CD packaging, display stands, and tshirts, to stickers, posters, table coverings, and multiple page broachures and guides. I have worked with many different types of printers and suppliers, and as a result, I learned quite a bit.

I own, both personally and professional, the Adobe CS4 master collection. I have used almost everything in that collection at one point or another. Considering that, and the work I have done, I think that gives me somewhat of an idea as to what the programs are ideally used for. In addition to that, I attended Adobe Max last year and learned from what Adobe deems the "Industry Experts." I thought I knew some things before, but seeing the pro's demonstrate some efficient techniques and best practices really helped give me additional perspective. I rant and rave a lot about this on this forum, but only because I firmly believe in it. Many of the lessons I have learned were hard one, from doing something the wrong/hard way. I just try to guide people to do it the correct way from the start instead of potentially learning from mistakes the hard way.




> As a professional graphic designer, i will say that you should ALWAYS have a vector version of your logo, period. Photoshop is not a design tool. It is a photo editor. Photo. Shop. See? Yes, it does matter what program you're using. Because a trained designer would not use Photoshop for designing a logo.
> 
> And if you're serious about your business, you should think about hiring a professional designer to work with you to create your company's image, rather than just trying to get "a quick logo in Photoshop for free".



This man speaks words of golden wisdom. Any professional designer who knows what they are doing will tell you the same thing. Having someone whip you up a free logo in photoshop can often look unprofessional. If you want to be taken seriously, having your branding/identity done by a pro will in turn make your band/company/whatever look pro.


----------



## Daemoniac (Oct 6, 2009)

Now most of what you said i either agree with, or didn't know (the issues with screen printing mainly, I wasn't aware of that, and it's definitely a handy thing to know, so thanks for the info there ) but this bit gets me... 



DarkKnight369 said:


> Now, you may currently work in a print shop, but that in no way makes you an expert. I have also seen/dealt with many "designers" who were just flat out dumb. They had some design skill, but they were completely computer retarded and barely knew the software they were using. Much of what you have said frankly lacks credibility.



I'm not actually a designer right now, though i've had a couple of years experience doing so, mainly with the CS3 design suite, admittedly not on your level, and i made a point based on what i've seen and experience from doing so. Working in graphic prepress, i _do_ know what a file has to be to go to print correctly (to paper at least), and i_ do_ know what kind of files (and how fucked up a lot of them have been, believe me, i know first hand the sheer stupidity of some designers) i've seen come through my printing firm. While it may not be at your standard, I believe some small degree of "credibility" is due insofar as the printing process goes.

Obviously i don't have your wide range of experience, but dude, a bit of respect for at least my opinion would be nice. I'm more than happy to swallow what little pride i have to learn something if you tell me why it's wrong, just with a little less acidity if you don't mind.



OP, it seems you have your answer. Given Dave's experience, i'd listen close, as odds are everyone else will be forgetting/not including something (like my issue with potential screen printing).


----------



## DarkKnight369 (Oct 6, 2009)

Demoniac said:


> Obviously i don't have your wide range of experience, but dude, a bit of respect for at least my opinion would be nice. I'm more than happy to swallow what little pride i have to learn something if you tell me why it's wrong, just with a little less acidity if you don't mind.



Sorry man, I honestly wasn't trying to knock you in any way. I guess I phrased what I said poorly. The way you said you worked for a print shop came off to me as if you create in the format you discussed, everything would be OK. Additionally, you don't specify what type of print shop you work for. What you said could be very misleading to someone who doesn't know any better. For instance, my father in law is part owner in a printing company, but the focus of what he does is large scale printing like the giant displays you see in restaurants, posters, and what not. He printed my bands back drop back in the day because its part of what they do. In the work his company does, Illustrator and InDesign files are more common due to the large scale nature of the work. Originating any work like that in photoshop would result in a huge file and would be a headache to work with.

I seriously wasn't trying to offend you, but you are only seeing things from one small perspective and you were making it sound like doing things in Photoshop would be OK. That is not always true, and I was just trying to elaborate on my experiences to show that. I have made a lot of dumb design mistakes over the years. I did not always know the right way and there was a time where I did everything in photoshop and used it as a crutch. It caused many headaches, and I learned a lot of what I know now the hard way. I just don't want to see people make the same mistakes if they don't have to.


----------



## Daemoniac (Oct 6, 2009)

^ Thanks man, i appreciate it.

TBH most of what i do is booklets/pamphlets/mid-large scale advertising to clarify, and a a reasonable amount of logo work comes through. Your point about designers being too lazy to learn to use Illustrator is definitely true for at least one of the people who works here, funnily enough he's the longest-serving member of the team too (10 years this year i believe )

But yes, i definitely realise how small a scale i'm looking at, and _know_ that there would be other things i'm not thinking of when it comes to possible scenarios.


----------



## DarkKnight369 (Oct 7, 2009)

Yeah, I figured you did things along those lines because you could get away with using rasterized filed for all of that stuff. Really, there is nothing wrong with having a photoshop logo if its originated in Illustrator. I have designed logos in Illustrator, then taken them into photoshop to doctor them up for myspace pages and such. A successful logo should still look good in black and white, so I always start there.

I had to force myself to learn illustrator. I am by no means an expert in it, as I mainly use it for logos and large displays with not a lot of text and just an image or two. I am sure I haven't even tapped into all its core features. Learning how to work with vectors actually improved my skills in photoshop and InDesign though, made some things clear for me.

I have dealt with a lot of designers that are either lazy, or not tech savy enough to learn all the features of software. My co-workers wife is a designer, and she calls him with computer questions all the time on her Mac. She sounds like she can barely use the thing. I have received working InDesign files from some creative suppliers of ours that were poorly set up. They can use InDesign to design something, but barely. They don't take advantage of things like paragraph styles and master pages which makes it more work in the long run. That is part of the reason why graphic designers are like a dime a dozen and not paid all that well. That is why I wanted to get into something more technical like multimedia. I am not a web development or flash guru, but those skills and my previous programming/scripting knowledge give me an advantage.


----------

