19 replies to this topic

[phoenix212]

Okay, so I'm launching a new site in a few months and I do basically everything myself these days, except for the logo and graphic design. My question is that have any of you out there taught yourself logo design and if so, was it hard? And how long did it take until you got the results you desired?

I would love to learn because I'd obviously save money in the future, though I don't want to if it's going to take months upon months of toil.

[Jill]

If you want it to look professional, you should outsource it. There are many very good, reasonably priced logo designers out there.

[Randy]

Adding to what Jill said, being a graphic designer requires skills that are easy for some and nearly impossible for others to learn. Depending in large part on the talents one has.

For instance, I can see in my minds eye what I want in pretty much any graphic for any site I create. I can even verbalize minute details. But I suck as a graphic designer, though I've spent literally years fiddling around with graphics and have the best digital imaging software available to me.

So even though I can see what I want and can even create a rough mock up, I leave the final execution to the real pros.

[1dmf]

Ditto to Jill & Randy, though I have created the odd company logo and to a reasonable quality. it's time consuming and frustrating when your graphic skills are lacking.

Outsourcing can cost less in the long run, if it takes you weeks to design your own, it looks rubbish and you loose visitors and sales because of it, was it really worth the 100 bucks you saved to start with?

but on the other hand, if you have a fare for graphic design, have a good package such as Fireworks or PhotoShop, and are a quick learner then go for it and good luck.

[MaKa]

Fireworks or PhotoShop

I'm not familiar with Fireworks, but I wouldn't use PhotoShop to design a logo unless I'm 200% certain it will only be used online, even then you're better of with PhotoShop's vector based sibling Illustrator. In Illustrator you can create truly scalable logos. Just a tip to avoid spending time designing a really cool logo, only to find out that if you print it bigger than 5x5cm it comes out all pixelated.

[1dmf]

sorry maybe I should have used the new term for the suite of packages that used to make up Photoshop , it's now called Adobe Creative Suite.

[MaKa]

Illustrator is part of Adobe Creative Suite as is PhotoShop. Although I think PhotoShop is by far the most known Adobe graphics editor.

Just trying to help others avoid a mistake I made. Way back I started drawing smilies in PhotoShop and did 300 or so of them, had to redo them all in Illustrator

[1dmf]

Way back I started drawing smilies in PhotoShop and did 300 or so of them, had to redo them all in Illustrator

why?

Photoshop specifically handles HI-Res imaging for printing, it's image ready which is based around web only and animated gif's isn't it?

[MaKa]

I wanted my designs available in higher resolutions. If you draw something in Photoshop you can't endlessly enlarge it. With a vector based image you can print it as big as you like without loosing any quality.

E.g. If you have a logo in 72dpi and you decide you want it on t-shirts or a big poster 300dpi+ you will loose image quality in Photoshop, this won't happen in Illustrator.

[Nan]

Personally - If I'm capable of the task, I do the task. The key, of course, is knowing my own limitations - and I admittedly don't allow myself many unless I have to. It's a darned good thing I'm blessed with the ability to take on most challenges..

I guess I'd say - If you're up to it, try it - Just don't be afraid to accept the results, be they success or failure.. and be wise enough to recognize either..

[Jill]

The problem with doing something like a logo yourself is that chances are you may end up loving your design, when in reality, it might kinda suck.

Been there done that, have the tshirt.

[jen.bas]

There are a lot of helpful software that you can use to create logo, basically, they have simple interface and are easy to use, its like your just editing from paint.. Its also a good way to develop your skills, it will be a good invest that you will definitely use later on..

[1dmf]

Maka, I didn't know this, infact I had to use photo shop on some images for the old mans brochure A4 flyer handouts once because the printers who were going to print the A4 laminates needed high res pictures in terms of DPI , but we needed to control the print size to quite small for the brochure.

the only way I could shrink the print size and not lose DPI resolution on the image was with photoshop, is this something different to what you are saying?

The problem with doing something like a logo yourself is that chances are you may end up loving your design, when in reality, it might kinda suck.

Been there done that, have the tshirt.

I can't believe anything you've ever done sucks Jill, go on show us ya logo

[MaKa]

Maka, I didn't know this, infact I had to use photo shop on some images for the old mans brochure A4 flyer handouts once because the printers who were going to print the A4 laminates needed high res pictures in terms of DPI , but we needed to control the print size to quite small for the brochure.

the only way I could shrink the print size and not lose DPI resolution on the image was with photoshop, is this something different to what you are saying?

Have a look at Bitmap vs. Vector-Based Graphics, they explain the basics.

I see it like this. You can't invent additional pixels accurately in a pixel based image. (You can try with interpolating etc. but it won't give good results). Graphics based on formulas (vectors) you can scale by an as large a factor as you want and the lines will stay as crisp.

I suspect with the A4 flyer you kept the number of pixels the same, you changed the DPI (Dots Per Inch). Which brings in an additional complication when you're thinking about pixel based images. A 1000 pixel wide image can be 13.9" at 72DPI (Screen) but for print at 300 DPI you would end up with a picture 3.3" wide. With print you are able to see much more detail than on a screen.

[1dmf]

Thanks Maka, I get what you're saying now.

The images in question were TIFF, and like 3000 x 1500 resolution 600DPI, if you use standard 'image resize' the DPI seemed to get degraded, where as if you change the print size but leave the photo actual size alone, you get the image size you want for print but keep the high res DPI.

This is all a bit over my head , so I guess it's not suprising, i'm getting cause vs effect and teminology all mixed up