Bad Graphic Design: Photography Studio Logos

Finding bad graphic design isn't very difficult. It's everywhere, and there are websites dedicated to the stuff. For example, logodesignerblog.com, where I found these three images, has a section of bad, ugly, worst logo designs that has some gems! From typographical snafus to overuse of effect to poor composition to just plain ugly—it's interesting to see what people are designing and putting out there. 

Three logos/identities for photography studios/companies are presented. Which is the worst one?

1. Fierce Photography is pretty awful. The large, gold, blurred, and heavily effected F, is made even worse by being translucent. The blurriness of it is what bothers me the most, I think. The centered type also has effects that don't help it at all. The tag line, "Capturing a memory, a moment, a smile, a look..." aligned right in a swirly script typeface is barely readable, has no room to breathe, and is anything but fierce! On to number two.

2. Fresh Look Images Photography has plenty of problems of its own. What's with these large, heavily effected Fs? Oy. Then there's the drop shadow on it and the drop shadow on "photography" but the rest of the type is flat. The choice of typeface itself is abysmal. And what's with the background? It looks like a faint brick texture on the left that fades into a flat background. It makes no sense. Fresh? I think not.

3. David Dove is...maybe...a photographer of celestial bodies? What is with the egg yolk Saturn-looking thing? Why would anyone put the a inside the D in David, when the D has a stroke on one side and the rest of the lettering doesn't (for one thing)? Then, the a's tail gets super-thin and extends to the right to underline the rest of the name. Yikes. The two typefaces clash. The extender of the h goes up through the d. David starts with a capital D, and dove doesn't. And I still just don't get the egg yolk planet. It's really pretty bad.

Maybe, just maybe, one, two, or even all of these photographers have a great eye for what makes a photo good; it could just be that they can't reason when it comes to graphic design. Maybe these were the throwaways—you know, the bad ideas before the designer came up with something brilliant. Maybe they were just starting out with little money and couldn't pay a decent designer. 

But I seriously doubt it.

So if you had to choose, which is the worst of the three? I honestly can't decide.

Source

Simple, elegant...retro...vintage. All good stuff.

What's so great about vintage or retro? This understated packaging design has a true vintage look that serves a real purpose.

This Atlas Brush Company paint brush packaging design is simple, yet beautifully elegant, using the kind of "vintage" illustration (tiny black silhouette of someone painting) and typography not unlike that of early commercial art. The three colors (a different color for each specific brush type) are soft and have a faded look to them. The decorative typeface used for the names of the brush types is gorgeous, and it definitely has the look of calligraphy from the past, but the color matches the other part of the packaging which is more modern. The other typeface used is Copperplate Gothic, designed in the early 1900s by Frederic Goudy. If this isn't beautiful vintage packaging, I don't know what is! The purpose of it is clear—the message is that the paint brushes and Atlas Brush Company are of very high quality and have been around for decades. The company is trustworthy and established; even the packaging states that it was established in 1952. The beauty of the packaging shows that they take great care in their work and craftsmanship of the brushes. It's no wonder they won a design award in the Communication Arts Design Annual (2008). 

I love it. I think it is the perfect design solution for this established company's paintbrushes. The colors, the typography, the simplicity, the illustration, and the continuity make it worthy of a design award. 

Source: Communication Arts Design Annual, 2008

CommArts Web Site

Credits:

Mary Ervin, designer

Michael Stanard, creative director

One Zero Charlie, design firm

Atlas Brush Company, client

ASICS: COLORS THAT RUN, literally!

ASICS Colors That Run Display
Winner, Communication Arts 2013 Design Annual

ASICS has been my running shoe brand for years. I'm due for a new pair, if I can ever find the time to run these days. Nothing like new exercise gear for motivation, right?

Well, I'm definitely motivated by these crazy-colored, extremely eye-catching ASICS shoes! The shoes themselves are so fun, but the 3-D displays are really modern and innovative, and they draw people in, bringing attention to the bright, vivid new colors. According to the blurb in Communication Arts, these displays were placed in 250 stores, and sales increased dramatically—58% at Foot Locker stores, 70% at Lady Foot Locker stores in the U.S.

I really love that everything is integrated. The shoes, the "paint pouring out," the ASICS storefront, the poster showing the shoe practically being blown apart by the vivid paint pouring into it, and even the comic/graffiti style poster on one of the displays. "COLORS THAT RUN" is the perfect tag line, and the understated, gray typeface is perfect for this phrase. This is a brilliant design, definitely cutting-edge. 

Okay. I'm seriously going to buy some new ASICS shoes and start running again. I am. I am. I really am. Seriously.

Credits:

Ahab Nimry, designer

Mike Brower, design director

John Vitro, executive creative director

Brian Dunaway, writer

Peter Schafrik, photographer

Cristi Perkins, production manager

Robbie Boyhan, production designer

Vitro, ad agency

ASICS America, client

Source: Communication Arts Design Annual 2013 (I have this in a hard copy, but I also subscribe to the online version, which is where the images are from). Go to website below (you may not be able to access it without a subscription; I'm not sure).

http://www.commarts.com/SearchOn.aspx?page=1&col=1184&inum=394&pj=30968