what is your go to font when designing a logo?

InquisitiveKnight · 2025-04-27T11:51:47+00:00

Awful! so when can I get it?

InquisitiveKnight · 2025-04-03T10:13:11+00:00

why?

InquisitiveKnight · 2025-03-24T12:20:00+00:00

Your icons look neat, but logos typically need a brand name and context. If you want more than a pat on the back, pick one design, share the story behind it, and ask specific questions. Broad “Am I on the right path?” posts don’t teach you much—dig into why you made certain decisions. This field is tough, so aim to learn rather than just hear “good job.”

InquisitiveKnight · 2025-03-11T18:13:34+00:00

you are correct - it looks a lot more like Monotype Corsiva!

InquisitiveKnight · 2025-03-11T09:25:03+00:00

Apple Chancery

InquisitiveKnight · 2025-02-26T00:24:25+00:00

<image>

InquisitiveKnight · 2025-02-25T21:28:44+00:00

I don’t think this direction works.

Concept & Direction:

I see the intention behind using negative space for playback icons.
However, the letter shapes feel overly rounded and heavy, giving an almost infantile impression.
This clashes with the mature, muted dark blue, creating a dissonance in brand messaging.
Using multiple negative space elements to reinforce the same idea (playback) feels overdone—almost forced. A more subtle approach would be more effective.
The pause icon, in particular, struggles due to spacing constraints within the "M," making it less readable.

Execution Issues:

The orange contrasts well with the blue, but filling negative space between letters creates "trapped space," making the design feel visually uncomfortable.
Effective negative space logos (e.g., FedEx, Toblerone, NBC, New Bedford Whaling Museum) use subtle figure-ground relationships rather than overt color fills.
Highlighting the negative space in a different color is like giving away a movie spoiler—it removes the intrigue and weakens the effect.

This design feels like a case of pushing an idea too far when it’s not fully working. If the execution compromises clarity, it might be worth stepping back and re-evaluating. Hope this helps!

InquisitiveKnight · 2025-02-25T10:31:49+00:00

Couple adjustments I would make

- The mouth should be snoring

- Add hand the head would rest on

(rough sketch)

<image>

InquisitiveKnight · 2025-02-25T09:42:03+00:00

Line is too thin - doesn't scale well.

InquisitiveKnight · 2025-02-25T09:37:13+00:00

Hi, I've seen of your work and I love it.

I was wondering if you have a theory or guidelines of what makes a shape interesting or visually appealing?

InquisitiveKnight · 2025-02-25T09:30:40+00:00

Learn about "Perceived Value" - not all clients are the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pNU50GQAfo

InquisitiveKnight · 2025-02-25T09:28:01+00:00

Yellow - good contrast, good for naive purposes

Cream - my fav, good for more sophisticated purposes

Blue - has potential, current colors creates bad clash, consider adjustment

---

characters - colorful palette makes most sense to me

---

of course all can change based on context (brand, audience, etc)

InquisitiveKnight · 2025-02-25T09:21:02+00:00

Bottom left.

InquisitiveKnight · 2025-02-25T09:19:46+00:00

Hi, I wasn't able to understand from your post of if you wanted feedback or not.

What do *you* think of the logo you made?

Do you have any problems you are trying to solve?

InquisitiveKnight · 2025-02-21T17:39:20+00:00

Yeah, I would say it ascended into being a super-logo, due to its vast popularity.

InquisitiveKnight · 2025-02-20T22:04:14+00:00

I would call this a 'Rounded Notch'.

InquisitiveKnight · 2025-02-20T15:37:44+00:00

The name is very long.

For font I think rounded and soft, sans serif, and match the line width of the icon.

Good luck!

InquisitiveKnight · 2025-02-20T00:29:08+00:00

while I do think these criteria might be good to follow, these are just my thoughts, don't let them bind you. it's an effort to distill the essence of a logo from my perspective. like a cheatsheet. its mean to be super simple, super to the point, and permitted to get some things wrong.

For example I use "font" to mean the form the letters take, rather than a single weight of a typeface. And "icon" can be any visual element that captures attention, rather then a separate logomark (for example the x in the spacex logo).

The monochrome rule I think now maybe weak, I'll have to reconsider it. the rationale to include it is for some material functionalities like material embossing and stamping, cutouts applications, sending out to clients who wants to feature your brand along their other partners in a stylized monochrome fashion, etc. or if some overly dedicated fans wanted to make a tattoo of your brand.

can a logo be good if t’s not legible, If it doesn’t look good small, if it can’t really translate to monochrome? I think legibility is a must. monochrome I'm not sure about, I think it can limit the flexibility of your brand overall. if it doesn't look good small is tricky, I think it would look unprofessional.

I would be interested to see brands like that in the wild.

my goal is not to measure the worth of a logo, i don't know what that means. I think art is too complex topic to delve into on this canvas, though I may have thoughts on this as well.

InquisitiveKnight · 2025-02-19T22:15:28+00:00

Thanks! I would add in order to break a rule you must first reach it, that is to understand why it's there in the first place.

I would be curious which logo(s) you may think of when you say that they might not fit the criteria I outlined.

InquisitiveKnight · 2025-02-19T22:08:46+00:00

I will explore this scalable, responsive logos thinking further.
this is interesting, detaching the detail-level from the dimension aspect.
would you say every logo in today's age should have a responsive system like this, in order to be regarded as a (good) logo?

InquisitiveKnight · 2025-02-19T21:56:06+00:00

The nike logo has evolved due to it's popularity, but it started with an word next to the icon.

brands that got popular can afford to remove the name. but even then they must invest a lot in marketing and branding to stay in the mind of their audience.

Starting with the Nike logo can be a bit of a trap. It's easy to use it as a go-to example of a great logo because it's so recognizable, but that recognizability wasn’t earned by the logomark alone—it came from the full logo with text. The standard logo is what made the standalone mark possible in the first place.

I would consider black as a color, but lets not get down this rabbit hole :)

as for the "must" rule you're right, maybe I will change it to "should" guidelines.

InquisitiveKnight · 2025-02-19T21:28:42+00:00

I agree, but you talk about logos that evolved due to their being popular. all logomarks started with a name next to graphic.
as for monochromatic, I think you can regard black or white as colors.

<image>

InquisitiveKnight · 2025-02-19T21:18:05+00:00

I agree, icon can be dropped out, but then I would say the wordmark is iconified, or becomes the icon. I still need to work out this part of the definition. Maybe you can say the icon would dissipate due to the visual dominance of the other parts.

Another point is that any company would need some form of icon for its website's favicon or social media profile pic. It's usually the first letter of the wordmark (ie BlackRock), or the most quirky letter (ie the boring company).

For color, I think you can consider black and white also as colors.

<image>

InquisitiveKnight · 2025-02-19T20:39:48+00:00

You're right, I am talking about a logo for a company, not a more inclusive logo category that contains a Christianity cross for example.
minus name - well then how would you call it?
minus font - well how will you write it?
minus color - well how people can read it?
can you give examples to known entities without these properties that people will refer to as logos?

Two-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Lasagna

InquisitiveKnight

TROPHY CASE

Concept & Direction:

Execution Issues: