Just looking for some opinions on a logo and header image I just made. Someone made the point that on the header image, the kissing couple didn't look right, but I thought it looked quite good. Any criticism would be appreciated.
Anyone got anything a little more specific to say with regards to the images? I can't see the problem with using gradients on logo's, and to be honest it's a pretty subtle gradient anyway. Perhaps if someone could explain.
I don't see anything wrong with using gradients but it's the matted layer that's worsening the effect. Perhaps removing the matted layer and have a drop shadow to the text would look more classy in my opinion.
Your revised logo with the blue and the more defined drop shadow is definitely better. Just one thing, and this is probably just me, but it almost seems that that "V" also starts the second line of text. ie, "Vinternet..." Does anyone else see that or do I just need some sleep? Maybe it's because the word "internet" is not capitalized and is so close to the V.
Regarding your header, definitely definitely better without the kissin' couple. Funny, though. You've received comments in this thread asking what relevance a kissing couple has to your site. While it looks better in your revised version, I would ask what relevance an old typewriter, a cityscape and a walking airport ramp have to your site. It just seems nowadays that there's alot of gratuitous use of images that really have no relationship with the subject matter of the site.
Don't get me wrong. The header looks nice. But I do think that if you gave more thought to relevant imagery on your site, it would be more effective.
DemoDemo.com - Flash tutorials since 2002 DemoWolf.com - 5,300+ Flash tutorials for hosting companies, incl. Voice tutorials
With regards to the city scape, it is a photo of office blocks which in my opinion is relevent to any corporation. Just my opinion. The new photo above is actually a photo of a laptop computer, a typewriter and a phone and did seem appropriate in its original form, perhaps it is a little more difficult to pick up details in its edited form.
By the 'walking airport ramp' I guess you mean the train station. That was included because of the way the photo was taken. The angles and the lines given off it look quite impressive, at least I think so. I'll be honest, this was included for aesthetics rather than relevence. At the end of the day, if I can get accross the point of the site in other ways, does the relevence of the photo's in the header really matter that much?
Looking at the logo, to me I see no confusion with the word 'internet' due to both the massive drop in font size (and use of a different font) and the fact that anyone looking at the site will be familiar with the word and should, in theory, realise that the V has nothing to do with it.
Of course if Vito isn't the only one who sees these problems, I'll have to revise it a little. Anyone see similar things?
Gradients are a pain if you plan to print the logo onto paper. Unless you use exact color mixes like Pantone it might even turn out completely different when you print it compared to the browser. So unless you: really know what you're doing with the colors, or never intend to print the logo, try to limit or avoid gradients altogether. =)
Ah, I see what you are saying, thanks for explaining that. However, having just printed a letterhead onto paper using a basic laser printer, the results have come out pretty much as I intended. Does this still mean that those with inkjet printers for example might have problems? If so, it looks like I'll have to have a bit of a rethink.