|
Post by taylorsman on Nov 8, 2005 23:11:25 GMT
I do NOT like the changes Munkholt made to the Masthead. Penfold's version as at Tuesday morning with the Pillars and Solid S&Q was far better to my eyes than this latest version and I feel things should have been left as they were.
That's my view. Over to you folks.
|
|
|
Post by a on Nov 9, 2005 6:08:59 GMT
I am not bothered either way.
|
|
giovanni
Member
odi profanum vulgus, et arceo
Posts: 2,627
|
Post by giovanni on Nov 9, 2005 6:42:21 GMT
As a matter of principle, I am not contra the pillars, but the precedent ones looked like midgets.
Furthermore, the rectangle was too short and seemed "squashed".
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Nov 9, 2005 7:56:40 GMT
Then why didn't Munkholt correct these aspect ratio problems not chop the Pillars out completely!? To me B&J play a very important part especially in Craft Masonry. As for the S&Q the solid Golden one that Penfold's original had was far better than this washed out "watermark" . At least the "G" is still there and it is not the emasculated S&Q one sees too often these days.
No, I wish he had left it alone.
In the end it's Lee's Forum and he must make the final choice but I have to enquire, who asked for it to be changed?
|
|
|
Post by Siontific on Nov 9, 2005 8:03:48 GMT
The new version is MUCH better. More pleasing to the eye and it looks like a proper logo for the Forum rather than a rip-off from another picture (already widely available).
Well done Munkholt.
|
|
|
Post by munkholt on Nov 9, 2005 9:05:51 GMT
Then why didn't Munkholt correct these aspect ratio problems not chop the Pillars out completely!? In all fairness, I did. But I also sent in the new version, and Penfold chose that one.
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Nov 9, 2005 11:09:05 GMT
What a pity. I would like to see what the corrected Original looked like. Perhaps you could send it to me?
|
|
|
Post by munkholt on Nov 9, 2005 11:52:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by vadro on Nov 9, 2005 12:20:34 GMT
I personally like Thomas version, even though I am not against the Pillars at all, as I like their meaning.
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Nov 9, 2005 12:26:39 GMT
Thanks far nicer by miles!. Why didn't you simply send that revised original one to Penfold instead of the changed one?
Now I am going to see if I can somehow get it to load on my home PC instead of the new one every time I access MFOL? I think the bit I hate the most about the new one is what you did to the S&Q. I detest that Ghostly logo and greatly prefer the solid one of the original version!
|
|
|
Post by munkholt on Nov 9, 2005 13:04:16 GMT
Like I said, I did send both (the original first, even).
And I also offered to take a second look at the S&C in the other thread. Maybe it wasn't very clear because I talked about moving it, but that's because it can't sit in the same position and be solid. But it could move to the right (or left). The reason why I didn't much like that, was that the 'G' would end up higher than the rest of the text and that looked unbalanced - not impossible, just not the ideal solution. I also tried moving the title up to match the 'G', but the text looked weird not standing on solid ground. Anyway, I'll take another look at the S&C, possibly tonight.
|
|
|
Post by munkholt on Nov 9, 2005 16:03:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Nov 9, 2005 16:33:41 GMT
Wow!
Almost a whole page discussing the Logo. I actually like the new one best. I think it has a calming influence over the whole of the Forum!
Sorry Steve!
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Nov 9, 2005 17:17:51 GMT
|
|
giovanni
Member
odi profanum vulgus, et arceo
Posts: 2,627
|
Post by giovanni on Nov 9, 2005 17:26:11 GMT
Yes.
Steve: never say never, James Bond teaches...
|
|
|
Post by munkholt on Nov 9, 2005 17:33:50 GMT
Wow! Almost a whole page discussing the Logo. Oh, as everyone knows, designing the logo is the most important decision for any new organisation to make, if they want to be taken seriously. Followed by stationary and business cards. Coming up with an actual product is waaay down on the list. Anyway, it's a minor fix, so I'll just go ahead and switch it. I promise to come up with something including pillars for the 10-year anniversary. ;D
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Nov 9, 2005 19:03:55 GMT
Well Thomas, we seem to be sorted inside one page it took BP Millions of pounds and a good few months to change thier Logo!
Steve, I would be happy with your choice!
MP
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Nov 9, 2005 19:28:47 GMT
Excellent! That is Fair Work and Square!
|
|
|
Post by Flensted on Nov 9, 2005 20:02:33 GMT
I like the new one. In my eyes it looks better as the top logo. Even in the corected version, with the pillars they still looks a little massed. I can see why some would like too see the pillars, but... I like what the new one does for the top. The pillars could be incluede elsewhere, so we still would have them.
|
|
|
Post by penfold on Nov 9, 2005 20:38:21 GMT
Excellent way to settle the matter Steve. I made the decision on which logo to use as Thomas's masthead was the correct orientation, well put together and the correct perspective to my eye. Buth, democracy rools here so it's to the vote!
|
|