[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/gd/ - Graphic Design


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • Additional supported file types are: PDF
  • There are 46 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]



File: google what the fuck.jpg (55 KB, 978x884)
55 KB
55 KB JPG
Shit that triggers you
>>
>I am not a designer: the dead giveaway
>>
>>320590
That logo is fucking beautiful and flawless you cuck
>>
Get off of 9gag anon
>>
ouch.
>>
>>320598
It's actually from https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinfuriating/comments/72cub9/googles_logo_design/
>>
>>320598
so you've been hanging out on 9gag...
>>
File: remake.jpg (31 KB, 1116x511)
31 KB
31 KB JPG
Let me show you why the actual logo is beautiful and why it doesn't work with perfect geometry.
>>
>>320658
original looks good and the remade looks like a chinese bootleg, i see what you mean anon
>>
>>320590

see
>>320658

and as for the google chrome thing:
>qypjg
>>
>>320658
The remake is actually better than the original, in this case. You could extend the red portion a bit more in the circle formation, but overall it looks classier, more modern, and more like a sleek electronics company, rather than some shitty coffee shop.

I know a lot of you are running under the rubbish "lol humans always prefer off-center garbage because perfectly aligned sequences are boring/look off", but that isn't standard.

>>320661
You only say that because you are used to the original being the official. Otherwise, it wouldn't be bootleg.
>>320593
Not an argument, and makes you sound like a faggoty Google shill
>>
>>320681
Remake it how you think it should be, we'll see which is better. (I'm honestly curious)
>>
>>320658
And you made the inside line of G thinner. You had one job
>>
>>320681
oh piss off you pseudointellectual teenage wank stain.

maybe google's goal wasn't to make it look 'classy, modern, sleek' (your positive spin on a subjective judgement), and much rather it looked more warm, friendly, human and familiar. in which case the design works fucking perfectly you dickhead

fuck off back to /g/, or /sci/, or /r9k/, or whatever other logic-loving shithole you camefrom
>>
balance through human visual perception you faggot. i bet you would set everything everywhere in Futura you perfect geometry cucksucking faggot.
>>
>>320681
>"lol humans always prefer off-center garbage because perfectly aligned sequences are boring/look off"

yes, that's called 'asymmetric composition' and is one of the fundamental driving forces in creating a visually engaging composition you're eyes follow. perfect symmetry is reserved for special cases.
>>
File: google-new-logo.png (151 KB, 1200x1260)
151 KB
151 KB PNG
Here's my attempt at it. I changed the thickness a little bit to make more visual "rhymes".
You want my opinion? The original looks pretty much the same to me. I don't notice such small things.
>>
Nobody cares about this, autist.
>>
>>320681
No, I'm saying this because Chinese knockoffs of things tend to be poorly made and have a very "robotic" feel to them. The "improved" version is still flawed in my eyes, and it isn't because I'm used to the original.

The red part of the logo looks terrible and looks more "cut off" than the original, the angle doesn't seem right. The geometry isn't supposed to be perfect. The original red portion is more tilted to give a sense of "swing" (not sure how to put it), where the shape of the logo changes more towards the top. Also, the blue part in the G isn't very thicc, whereas in the original it is
>>
File: file.png (220 KB, 1200x1260)
220 KB
220 KB PNG
>>320699
>>
>>320699
Original looks better
>>
>>320738
its keeping to the idea of making the logo align to a perfect circle
>>
This is one of the most retarded things I've seen in my day.

I will admit, there are some modern, sorta "blocky" typefaces that will trigger me to shit if they all don't have the same height on the top of capital glyphs or the capital O is not a perfect cricle (such as tex gyre adventor, which is guilty of both crimes), but the capital G was never meant to be a perfect circle in the first place.

Here let me make this easy for you, ctrl+mwheel up and take a look at the G below.

G

See? Perfectly acceptable but not a perfect circle.

(oh and if you haven't guessed by now that Google was trying to have a friendly and relatable logo, then you really should reconsider posting on this board at all)
>>
>>320738
>>320658
so far all we've proven is that there is very clearly a good reason they deviated from perfect symmetry/circle/thickness
>>
File: google-logo-geometric.png (19 KB, 630x630)
19 KB
19 KB PNG
>>320738
Here. I thought the circle looked slightly better and closer to original
>>
File: glyphs.png (30 KB, 996x400)
30 KB
30 KB PNG
>>320760
>>320727
>>320763
I kind of agree with what people said. Here's a comparison I made for a few "geometric fonts" I found. You can see that all the fonts deviate from perfect form a little bit. The last font looks surprisingly close to Google's 'G' actually. I think they picked a memey retro font that will look out of place 5 years later.
I agree that not doing any narrowing/widening makes a font look more like a figure, less like a letter that's supposed to be read.
But that said, also in this specific case, the crossing diagonal guides impose some annoying limitations. If you follow them strictly, the letter just comes out looking retarded. And aligning the edge of a line to them look pretty bad, like the bottom of a G is inflated.
>>
File: google geometric.png (17 KB, 630x630)
17 KB
17 KB PNG
Since I went full autism already, here's one more version to make lines 45º
>>
>>320774
>>320787
These look like a retarded version of the Google logo.
>>
>>320805
Yep. That's what I said. The bottom looks too big.
If you look at >>320783, then you can see all 3 fonts have the inside counter a bit below the center. And with Futura it's very evident it doesn't follow perfect circle as it might seem at first.
>>
>>320590
Must be awful having autism
>>
Honest question: do you guys really find the Google logo beautiful? I think is pretty lame
>>
>>320814
I have mixed feelings about it.
Initially I was very disappointed. To me it still looks like something made for a toy company. It's too generic, without especially unique/memorable features. And also, I liked how the old logo looked kinda respectable and serious, despite the admittedly lame color scheme. It always made me think how Google was a huge and powerful corporation.
But on the other hand, the new logo reflects what Google tries to be NOW. A 'friendly' company that pretends it's not a business at all but more like some sort of charity. With products that aim for maximum simplicity and accessibility. Being about future and technology, but also making it 'humane'. When I think if it this way, then perhaps the logo fits it 100%. It's almost spot-on perfect, in this sense.
Nevertheless, I still dislike its overly naive, informal look. But that's what Google's image is all about: naive and overly informal facade. We're talking about a search engine that constantly puts some doodle on its front page when you're trying to use it for serious tasks.
>>
>>320681
retarded person spotter.

this isn't because of some hipster off center bullshit, but because of the way how we percieve geometric shapes. imperfect shapes look better and more rounded than perfect geometric shapes.

for instance, look at some geometric fonts and pay attention to letters C, G, O etc
>>
>>320819
Good answer, thank you anon
>>
>>320814
It's beautiful in its simplicity, I suppose. Does what it needs to and fits with Google's design system.

If they tried to do a billion different things with negative space and combining letterforms and trying to make the Os look like someone surfing the web it would be pretty shitty.
>>
>>320760
>trl+mwheel up and take a look at the G below.
What fonts have an O that is a perfect circle? that's very unusual
>>
>>320900

Well like I was mentioning, Tex Gyre Adventor has an O that is soooo close to being a circle, but not. It doesn't affect the typeface either having the O as a perfect circle either, so I just don't know what the designer was thinking when he made that specific character. However, if I want to get anything at all BoC-ish going... kinda don't have a choice but to fuck with the O's unless if I wanna go through the hassle of assembling my own font.
>>
>>320738
I had this exact same reaction
>>
File: Perfect.png (122 KB, 2000x2000)
122 KB
122 KB PNG
>>320658
the red section originally cut off at 45 degrees, cutting it to match the yellow is ridiculous. In fact, the yellow section itself seems disgustingly disproportional to the other colors.

>>320787
I don't like how the curve becomes a straight line. I think the original logo gives a better sense of a circle, even though it may not be one, however I like the 45 degree colors.

I went ahead and made two versions with 45 degree colors, one that is actually a circle (which looks odd) and one more reminiscent of the original.
>>
File: Proper.png (122 KB, 2000x2000)
122 KB
122 KB PNG
>>321265
and here is the non-circular one
>>
>>321265
This looks better than >>321267

It's perfect.
>>
File: 1507058814411 copy.png (133 KB, 2000x2000)
133 KB
133 KB PNG
>>321265
>>
File: 32855841688427p.jpg (101 KB, 478x478)
101 KB
101 KB JPG
>>321265
>>321267
Good ones. It really gives off this Simon Says vibe now.

>>321279
oh yeah, I thought of this too but it looks very wrong
>>
>>320591
> i am a compromising, arbitrary, "gut feel" bohemian, fuck geometric logic and order
>>
>>321677
>he doesn’t understand that visual symmetries are geometric phenomena
>muh logic
>>>/pol/
>>>/g/
>>>/r9k/
>>
>>320590
Learn the difference between visual and mechanical, fuckwit. I bet you hate overhanging punctuation too.
>>
>>321734
He’s triggered by the person criticising the logo for not being geometric, idiot.
>>
>>321738
Are you sure? You seem to be the first that thinks that. No need for the insult by the way, you could always go back to /b/ for that.
>>
>>320681
>I know a lot of you are running under the rubbish "lol humans always prefer off-center garbage because perfectly aligned sequences are boring/look off", but that isn't standard.
Yes, it actually is standard fucktard
>>
>>321771
Yes, I am.
>>
It's called graphic design, not symmetry
>>
>>321853
Then perhaps it is you who is the idiot?
>>
>>321879
No, it's you.
>>
File: 1468875732981.png (193 KB, 1000x2000)
193 KB
193 KB PNG
>>
>>322325
I actually like this for some of the logos. But mostly those that aged or were simply shit from the start: Coca-Cola, Samsung, Yahoo, maybe Ikea and divided on Visa. More than anything, Yahoo. They should've claimed Futura long ago.
Actually was worse for: Canon, Sony, Starbucks. Disney's logo aged, but Futura does them no justice, it's too generic, serious and modern
>>
>>322325
Yahoo and Visa seem decent since they still have some character.

Canon and Sony are completely lifeless though, way too generic.
>>
YOU ALL MOTHERFUCKER ARE MISSING THE BIGGER PICTURE, WHY DID THEY REPLACE THIS?
>>
>>322338
Serifs and unnecessary for display type, and dropshadows are some disgustingly dated Web 1.0 shit
>>
>>322338
Because it was the wrong typeface to set for that logo. It's a lot better now. I was surprised it took them so long to change it.

>>321909
He was right. You're as thick as shit.
>>
>>322326
Ok, but there is no future in that pic
>>
>>322343
Funny because serifs are becoming cool in tech again. Look at Slack using Tiempos.
>>
File: elis--tom-534fd353d83a9.jpg (476 KB, 1000x1000)
476 KB
476 KB JPG
>>322437
>Slack
First, it's not for the logo—it's for the headlines on their site.
Second, it's not unique in any way to tech, it's a generally returning trend of '60s–'70s cool fat fonts
>>
>>322338
>>322393
It looks kinda weird, and the color scheme is really cancer, but remember it was made in 1999, back when Google was small, in an era that produced a lot of atrocious design and quite a few dotcom flops. Few probably expected that Google would go on to be the #1 search—let alone that it would far ourgrow being just search.
That said, I liked the old logo in a way… The font had a personality that I'd describe as kind, knowledgeable, and reliable. And as for serifs—Apple used Garamond, so why the heck not?
It wasn't that bad, it just became too unfashionable for a company that tries to be very progressive, both tech and politics-vise.
>>
>>320590
oh god damn it
op
>>
File: modern design.png (134 KB, 1055x900)
134 KB
134 KB PNG
>>322325
Reminds me of this thing I found a while ago on some /g/ website
>>
>>322575
My initial reaction to this was that it was too bland and a meme, but The more I look at it, the more I like it. Maybe not as actual logos, but the ideas are quite fun.
For Samsung this is actually an improvement (I hate their oval logo with passion).
I think Sony and Nintendo already use these fonts as some of their secondary fonts. But even though they're generic and unexpressive as fuck, I actually wouldn't mind these, only not for the logos Maybe for some of their lines.
For Coke, the thin letters make a very cool contrast from the ol' chunky script, making a nice metaphor to convince you sugar doesn't make you fat. Also, it updates the old logo to something modern yet timeless. Sure, it's nowhere near as iconic or memorable as the old logo, and it's too late to change anything anyway, but I wouldn't mind it if they tried it for Coke Light for example.
McDonalds logo becomes less busy, maybe add caps but I like it anyway. The golden arches symbol is already as recognizable as it gets, and the rest is here for what? "Red excites you and brings the appetite", does anyone still care about this shit? Just like their other branding, it needlessly reminds you that it's indeed McDonaldsmultiple times in a row, as if you still weren't quite sure.
Rolex and ThinkPad ones aren't too good though. But ThinkPad is so shit that literally anything is better than this
>>
>>322575
literally none on those on the right are worse than their left version
>>
it's made that way because if it wasn't it would look weird, try fixing it and look at both at the same time, the original will look way better
>>
>>320590
These threads
>>
>>322575
I really fucking dig the nintendo one on the right - I just wish the stroke on the characters was the same weight as that of the oval
>>
>>321722
>>320692
>>320695
>>320700
>>320813
>>321771
>>321879
>>322393
Kill yourself, /utg/ nigger kike samefag




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.