New MP logo
|
I 'get it' but I have to agree that I really liked the older, simpler logo. But I understand that the others brands need to feed off the success of MP and that there should be consistency across the line. |
|
First thing, thanks mods admins etc for all your hard work. I don't post much but I'm on this site every day and really appreciate what you do. |
|
Looks like an ear. I don't like it. |
|
Would have made a cool contest for the community. |
|
JoeGaribay wrote:Looks like an ear. I don't like it.haha can't unsee it |
|
I will keep my old MP stickers but never put new ones when these fade or fall off. |
|
What's the deal with everyone assuming the climbing figure's gender, just because it looks like a womxn? |
|
Yeah, I like the original logo too. Simple and easy to understand. |
|
Scott Kilts wrote:First thing, thanks mods admins etc for all your hard work. I don't post much but I'm on this site every day and really appreciate what you do. I don't want to criticize your process or decisions but I am curious about what the motivation of a rebrand was? This logo appears to have been created by someone without a lot of experience designing logos or icons (or perhaps there was some input from people that don't know what they are talking about). The hexagonal mountain symbol is a cool way to draw all of the 'project' sites together, but ditch the figure climbing. It's not a good choice, too complex and hard to see at small sizes. A much simpler form, like a carabiner or a knot would work better. As far as the logotype goes...I may have liked the sans serif more but that's just personal opinion. The new geometric sans serif is definitely more modern and forward thinking, and I like the emphasis sticking with 'mountain' but the sizing and spacing could use a little more work. "Project" gets a little fuzzy, needs to breathe. I find myself thinking that it looks pretty cool when I open it up at a large size, but once it's in the header of the site things start feeling cramped. I spent 15m or so playing with this for fun. Feel free to hide my post / images if I'm out of linethis |
|
Scott Kilts wrote:First thing, thanks mods admins etc for all your hard work. I don't post much but I'm on this site every day and really appreciate what you do. I don't want to criticize your process or decisions but I am curious about what the motivation of a rebrand was? This logo appears to have been created by someone without a lot of experience designing logos or icons (or perhaps there was some input from people that don't know what they are talking about). The hexagonal mountain symbol is a cool way to draw all of the 'project' sites together, but ditch the figure climbing. It's not a good choice, too complex and hard to see at small sizes. A much simpler form, like a carabiner or a knot would work better. As far as the logotype goes...I may have liked the sans serif more but that's just personal opinion. The new geometric sans serif is definitely more modern and forward thinking, and I like the emphasis sticking with 'mountain' but the sizing and spacing could use a little more work. "Project" gets a little fuzzy, needs to breathe. I find myself thinking that it looks pretty cool when I open it up at a large size, but once it's in the header of the site things start feeling cramped. I spent 15m or so playing with this for fun. Feel free to hide my post / images if I'm out of lineAfter years of reading endless technical essays on gear and bolt tolerances from all the slide ruler engineers on MP a graphic artist sees his shot and takes it! |
|
that guy named seb wrote: a much better logoSpeaking as a professional designer. That SNCC logo is worse because - That small font is unreadable at small scale. - Those small rope and draw details are lost at a small scale - That texture behind the big letters is visual clutter (it doesn't make the design more impactful or improve the recognition of it) If they took out the small letters and simplified it a bit more than maybe you could have a 1:1 with the new MP logo. What Scott Kilts posted is pretty much my thoughts as well. Although if you remove the person climbing or some sort of secondary read it starts to look like The North Face Steep Series logo. Austin Baird wrote:WHY DON'T THE PEOPLE WHO PROVIDE THE FREE SERVICE THAT I'M NOT FORCED TO USE CONSULT ME ON EVERY DECISION THEY EVER MAKE AND THEN OFFER EXPLANATIONS TO EACH OF MY COUNTLESS COMPLAINTS ABOUT THEIR DECISIONS?!?!?!?! IS THIS AMERICA OR COMMUNIST RUSSIA??This guy knows what's up.
|
|
NorCalNomad wrote: Speaking as a professional designer. That SNCC logo is worse because - That small font is unreadable at small scale. - Those small rope and draw details are lost at a small scale - That texture behind the big letters is visual clutter (it doesn't make the design more impactful or improve the recognition of it) If they took out the small letters and simplified it a bit more than maybe you could have a 1:1 with the new MP logo. What Scott Kilts posted is pretty much my thoughts as well. Although if you remove the person climbing or some sort of secondary read it starts to look like The North Face Steep Series logo. This guy knows what's up. ***edit THANK GOD I CAN FINALLY QUOTE MULTIPLE PEOPLE IN ONE POST!It looks fine on a small scale imo , both the text and the rope come out fine. I mean I do have big oven mitt hands but our sticker is still pretty small. Even when we cram it into the corrner of a poster it still reads just fine. --- Invalid image id: 112356180 --- Interestingly enough we don't have the textured portion on the letters on all things very often. (Our shirts are the thing that comes to mind as being the most prominent thing) --- Invalid image id: 112356203 --- (*unsure why those are sideways , maybe directly uploading from a phone?) |
|
Just noticed the other logos at the bottom... yeah, a cam a la the Powder Project logo would make a significantly better symbol. Or a pink tricam. Or even a retraced 8 (since most of you won't use bowlines). |
|
Seriously? Who designed this? I'm all for gender equality and I love the fact that the person pictured is a woman, but first of all, it looks like she's falling. Second, she has no discernible safety gear on, let alone a rope. Even if she were soloing something, she'd at least have a chalk bag. I could comment on the lack of symmetry too or the fact that the figure is too detailed in some ways while being not detailed enough in others, but really, who designed this? Is there any changing it? Just..wow. |
|
As a member since the very beginning (Even before Mr Wilder, look!), I find the new logo lame. From a background in some marketing and business I always found that incorporating people in a logo always causes problems, too small, controversy, etc. |
|
this honestly looks like a logo where no one could come to an agreement so everyone just "settled" for the generic, bland logo that no one was vehemently against. |
|
At least on my system, the "favicon" website icons that appear in my browser have the icon with sky/person in white and mountain/hexagon in blue, all on a square white background. The square background looks bad to me and I'd assume should be made transparent. |
|
The other thread was deleted?? WTF?? |
|
My guess is that male rock climbersnoutnumber female climbers by 2 to 1. Not sure why you chose a women. Is it because men are bad? |
|
I get the overall theme across the different platforms. When they are all on the same view it makes sense although I assume the Powder Proj needs to be updated to a little skiing/snowboarding person? |