Optical sizes for logos?

[nina]

This topic was imported from the Typophile platform

Strange question maybe but has been bugging me for a while: Does anyone ever make different optical sizes of logos – not necessarily the type, but the mark itself? And if not, why not?

Background: I'm currently working on a logo (and I don't think I can post it at the moment, so I'd appreciate a discussion on the "theoretical" level) that needs some detail that makes it vivid at large sizes (think company car decal) but gets lost at business-card sizes (at least on my printer).

So do you think there are any cogent reasons against making a "HD" and a "lo-fi" version of the same mark, one finer, the other more sturdy?

[typerror]

Absolutely!

Michael

[kentlew]

Yes.

Getting the client to abide by the guidelines for use over the long haul will be an entirely different matter. (But should probably be considered before spending a lot of time of multiple versions.)

[CreativeNRG]

The only aspect I've ever adjusted in a logo has been the size of the ™ or ® at a large or small size. One test I use during the design process is to make the logo an avatar size to see how it holds up. If you are losing important aspects something is wrong IMHO. A logo, by design, is suppose to be consistent and extremely flexible.

Note: I will sharpen low-res bitmap versions intended for use on a website and will completely recreate 16px x 16px 'fav icon' sizes.

Best of luck on your project.

[J.Montalbano]

It all depends on the details of the logo, but the short answer is yes.

[nina]

Cool! Thanks all. Just out of curiosity (and for my client), does anyone have any good examples? I must admit I've never seen this done and/or discussed – maybe just been living under a rock…

CreativeNRG: Of course I'd agree, in principle, that logos are supposed to be scalable. BTW I would say that the logo in question works when scaled – no *crucial* detail is lost –, it just doesn't look its best at all sizes equally; and that got me wondering – if we're talking about the importance of optical scaling in type, shouldn't we accept its merits for logos as well – in terms of making the "HD" and the "lo-fi" version *optically* consistent/optimized instead of just mathematically scaled?

Kent, in this case it looks like I'll be in charge of most (if not all) of their printed materials myself, and will also be advising them on use of the logo in other media, so I can luckily have an eye on proper usage.

[Don McCahill]

One example is the IBM logo. The number of bars changes when used very small or very large.

[CreativeNRG]

@altaira: I completely understand your point but I've never seen a style guide specify the use of different logo files at different sizes. However, most guides restrict the use below a certain size in print. If anyone has an example of a style guide that requires different versions based on size I'd love to see it!

@Don McCahill: Interesting point about the IBM logo. Does anyone have a visual example? I've only seen it used with 8 bars and couldn't find a deviation after an image search.

[J.Montalbano]

We did a set of optically adjusted logos for Kate Spade a few years ago. The space between elements was adjusted as were the fine details.

[dtw]

Yes. An example is Palgrave — see the 8-pointed star logo at the bottom of the sidebar. It appears on pretty much all Palgrave book and journal covers, and there are three versions of it, with less contrast in the arms for smaller sizes. In the smallest (for sub-5mm, such as spines), the little boxes at the ends of the arms are solid instead of open...
________________________________________________
Ever since I chose to block pop-ups, my toaster's stopped working.

[CreativeNRG]

Thanks 'TerminalDesign' for proving that example. However, I'd expect most of the optical adjustments were made in the tiny versions in the third row.

I'd like to clarify my previous point... Absolutely, you need to make those optical adjustments when you convert a vector logo (for print) into a very small bitmap logo (for web). To allow Photoshop to make your bicubic downsampling decisions for you would be insane.

If the logo stays in a vector format with a minimum size I don't see the need for another version. The version used on a business card can be scaled to go on the side of a semi trailer.

[dtw]

Jeff, it's to do with print resolution: I've seen the "large" version of the Palgrave symbol printed at about 4mm wide by mistake, and the little squares were fuzzy & indistinct. Much the same as having a display version of a font with fine lines, and then a "regular" text vesion, and maybe a "caption" version where the "thins" are chunkier so they don't get lost at small sizes. Just like you wouldn't set Big Caslon at 6pt. I'll see if I can fish out the relevant page of the branding guidelines document if you like.

_________________________________________________
Ever since I chose to block pop-ups, my toaster's stopped working.

[Bendy]

Wish I'd read this thread about 3 months ago, then we could have got the design agency to make the favicon, and include the (R) from the start. ;)

[CreativeNRG]

@ DTW: Dave, I think we're all on the same page but with slightly different perspectives. Please forgive my 'old school' mentality. Twenty years slugging it out in prepress and printing will do that to a guy. I could talk chocks and spreads for hours. Still miss the days when etching film was an art. ;)

I completely agree with everything you're saying but personally haven't seen a style guide that would allow you to use a logo at such a 'tiny' size. If you come across something I'd love to see how they deal with it.

I think your point about them using the wrong version of the logo goes to the initial question as to the down side of having too many versions of the logo for different situations. KISS... or someone is bound to F it up beyond belief at a big cost to someone.

[Paul Cutler]

Agreed. I have never seen a style guide or encountered a company that had different logos for different sizes. Obviously it exists as some previous posts point out, but considering the chain of custody that happens between the logo designer and an end-user like myself I don't think it's a good idea - I'm lucky to even get vector.

"Just grab it off the web…"

When I'm designing a logo I look at it from sub 1" to very large and everything in between before I show it to anyone.

pbc

[manofscience]

Hi Altaira,

An obvious example seems to me the current trend of 3D-ifying logos and adding subtle beveling and gradient to imply a slightly rounded look.

When used small, however, the '2D' or simply two-colour version can be used. For example, Apple's logo is this glassy blob thing writ large, but they can fall back on the simple silhouette Apple when using it small. Other examples include most car manufacturers (e.g. Ford, GM) and UPS have '3D' updated versions of their logos as well as the original '2D' versions. The extra detail does add some extra interest at large sizes. A Google images search will demonstrate any of the above examples.

Whether you agree with the trend is another matter. I heard a (possibly made-up) story that UPS commissioned Pentagram to explore possibilities for an update on their classic logo by Paul Rand. They racked up the allocated number of billable hours but eventually came back to UPS and presented them with all the reasons that their existing logo was a classic and shouldn't be fiddled with. UPS paid them but then went to FutureBrand to get their current 3D-effect shield with cliched swoosh and rounded-ish sans.

On a somewhat related note: 'How long should a logo last?' - Johnson Banks: http://www.johnsonbanks.co.uk/thoughtfortheweek/index.php?thoughtid=310
"Yellow Pages have cut the umbilical chord that held them to Futura and opted for one of those ubiquitous humanist soft sans serif solutions. Paradoxically, by opting to hit the more modern button they’ve traded long term stability for short-term refresh, but if that notches up a few better points in tracking, that may be deemed a success. There’s also a wry typographic twist there, as the typeface named after the future (Futura) is dumped for something of the present."

H

--
Henry Hadlow - Graphic Design / Art Direction

[Bert Vanderveen]

Optical size logo’s are only feasible in an environment where there is really tight control over usage.
In other words: the concept is nice, but do not go there. Just set up some clear guidelines for usage with good/bad examples and hope for the best. There are a lot of uneducated (iow bad) socalled designers.

. . .
Bert Vanderveen BNO

[paragraph]

Please ignore this post if you do not want to be dragged back in time into the previous century.

The different version of logos in the past (IBM was mentioned above) had a lot to do with different scales of use, not just printing at different sizes. A (1) top-of-the-building sign visible from miles away, through (2) car/truck/plane decals down to a (3) business card or a post stamp. Then different considerations again: (1) not black, because it needs to be illuminated at night, but a black & white line (no tone) version was needed for newspaper ads in letterpress. (2) not too much detail so it can be cut from vinyl or sprayed on with a stencil on 1000 trucks reasonably cheaply, (3) business cards and stationery were mostly printed in 1–2 colours, not full colour as often happens today.

[dtw]

Jeff, I quite agree about KISS. In any big company, almost as soon as an identity is in place, people who are not [professional] designers will need to use elements of it. Many of them will not be aware of branding guidelines, nor of official versions of the logos on specific intranet sites (or whatever), and, when they realize they need to put the logo on item x, will extract it from the first item y that they can. "Different versions, what different versions?" It's inevitable as death & taxes.

FWIW, here's the relevant branding guidelines page:

_________________________________________________
Ever since I chose to block pop-ups, my toaster's stopped working.

[nina]

Wow great. Thanks for the input and examples.
Interesting, the elements in question in my logo are also thin-armed "stars", so structurally somewhat similar to the "spikes" in the Palgrave symbol.

Thanks Henry (zrenneh), good food for thought (being processed :-).

Bert:
"the concept is nice, but do not go there"
Wouldn't you say that depends on the situation though? I wouldn't usually consider this, but like I said in this case it looks like I might have pretty good control over how the logo will be used, at least initially.

I'll see the client today so will ask him if it might be okay for me to put the thing up for critique after all…

[Tim Ahrens]

Another example would be the logo for the German bank Sparkasse, (re)designed by Otl Aicher.
See http://www.guidosworld.de/logos/Logos/Sparkasse/sparkasse.htm

[Paul Cutler]

>Wouldn’t you say that depends on the situation though? I wouldn’t usually consider this, but like I said in this case it looks like I might have pretty good control over how the logo will be used, at least initially.

Initially is the key word here. I don't know how the company you are designing for works, but usually the logos/style sheets I get are requested by a marketer and sent to them from another marketer. Have you ever dealt with marketers? A lot of times they cannot understand the difference between vector and "grab it off the web", especially now that the internet is such a focus. Yesterday I was sent a .png at 6.2K to "pop" in an InDesign presentation.

Then you have to consider the designer at the other end, are they going to read the style guide? And when they don't are the people at your company going to be sharp enough to recognize a violation?

pbc

[CreativeNRG]

@DTW: Thanks much for providing the Palgrave example. Even at the 20 mm size it would present issues and I'd hate to see the results after it was printed in grayscale or color on newsprint at 85 or 100 lpi. Add in a touch of misregistration on press and you've got a major mess on your hands.

Do you know why they allow the logo to be printed that small? The majority of style guides prohibit scaling the logo anywhere near that size.

In a flash of brilliance I just figured out how to print the Palgrave mark at 7 pt.

Here it is ---> *

[Bert Vanderveen]

I wouldn’t usually consider this, but like I said in this case it looks like I might have pretty good control over how the logo will be used, at least initially.

Ahh, I have had some clients for years, some for over a decade, but none forever. So, that’s why I recommend to KISS.
But if *you* can, by all means go for specific files for specific usage.

. . .
Bert Vanderveen BNO

[satya]

Yes, No - depends on the logo. If the logo has lot of details in it, one must optimize it for the small sizes. But then one should always avoid too many elements (details) in a logo, and have only one version so that it reduces the chances of its misuse in the future.

We (at Dalton Maag) made two versions for this logo* to make sure it works well also in the small sizes. You can see that all the thin strokes has been expanded a little in the second version so that they look same (optically) even at the different sizes.

*This is just for the example purpose - not the final artwork.