Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Logo 101: Simple vs. Complex Imagery

As I talked about in my last post, simple logos are more effective than complex ones. Complex logos tend to be loaded with details, and unnecessary information. Logo's should not appear lifelike or photographic, it's more important that your logo speak for itself. Simple imagery works better with logo design when it comes to printing and display. If you create a simple logo, you can shrink or enlarge it to any size without losing the overall structure or idea of the image. For example, you should be able to see your logo clearly when you shrink your logo down for your business cards, or letterheads. This also applies for enlarging your logo, people should be able to see your logo on a billboard from as far away as possible. We'll take a look at some examples to show the difference between simple and complex by shrinking them.

Apple's first logo designed by Ron Wayne in 1976

Apple Logo Monochrome Version Created by Rob Janoff in 1998

Above are two large versions of the Apple logo in 1976 and the new logo created in 1998. They are both large so you get the idea of the apple. In the new one we can see the shape of a bitten apple and in the old one we have a complex image of Isaac Newton being hit on the head with an apple from an apple tree. The old logo has far too much detail and will lose its value and idea when shrunk.

Do you see how the simple logo is working much better when scaled down? We see the same image as before when the logo was much bigger. However, the same can't be said for the old Apple logo. It has lost all of its details once we reduced it to this size (icon size). The logo on the left is now far more interesting and easier for the viewer to comprehend and recognize from a distance. Keeping your logo design simple will make it easier for everyone to understand your brand and will pay off when it comes to display and printing. Save all the hassle of rebranding by getting it right the first time, keep it 
simple stupid. 

No comments:

Post a Comment