Logo design: is this too simple or boring?

Question

I'm currently designing a logo for a film production company, but I am struggling a bit and would be grateful some feedback. This is my progress so far:

I've received some feedback from people on instagram and most seemed to have positive responses but some mentioned the general lack of colour and one said that it is more a badge rather than a logo and is "trying to be an illustration but it is not".

I'm also not sure if what I have done is too safe/obvious and whether I should perhaps come up with something more abstract? Or if it is too simplistic, but then I'm not entirely sure if that's necessarily a bad thing!

One idea which was raised was to go with something completely different and use an icon of a hatchet - as Baltag means hatchet apparently, but I feel that is beyong my logo design abilities.

The company is called 'Victoria Baltag Production', and in terms of design I haven't really been given anything else to go with aside from the name, and that it should convey that it is for a production company.

Answer 1

• I recently made a comment on another design, but that also applies in this case: avoid designing from our remote memory, on the contrary, take as a starting point a real reference and elaborate the abstraction. Especially when we are not very good at drawing. Is the logo a pictogram of the profile of a film camera?

• You are using a Gestalt Law: Figure-Ground. But then you self-sabotage the effect of your design by adding a parallel shadow! It's a nonsense.

Figure-ground perception refers to the tendency of the visual system to simplify a scene into the main object that we are looking at (the figure) and everything else that forms the background (or ground). The concept of figure-ground perception is often illustrated with the classic "faces or vases" illusion, also known as the Rubin vase. Depending on whether you see the black or the white as the figure, you may see either two faces in profile (meaning you perceive the dark color as the figure) or a vase in the center (meaning you see the white color as the figure).

• How many size reductions the word "PRODUCTION" will support?

• There are two relatively unrelated typography families: an Egyptian with a humanist sans-serif. This means one with an equal stroke and hard rectangular serif with a sans-serif with modulating strokes. As a contrast it is valid, but perhaps it should be more accentuated to not be interpreted as a graphical mistake.
• Red arrows: three different stroke/serif unions, if the typography is like that, in a two oversize characters playing with figure/ground, brings more confusion than quality to the design.
• Orange arrows: two different stroke/serif unions
• Green arrows: three different gaps between shapes

• This is a simple logo with eight shapes, six of them with different shape typology, will be good to find a formal meeting point to relation them. Shapes 2, 3 and 6 are very confusing perceptively. In a reduction, shape 2 looks like a mistake.

• A positive perceptive point you should enhance: the conjunction between V and B gives a point of support in the V and directionality in the B, perfect to finish with the camera lens. Don't be shy showing it, at the original design the whole lens is nearly hidden or worse, together they are a formal wall that stops the dynamics of the logo.

Answer 2

Boring? Depends on who's looking at it. If you're referring to color, yes it could be boring and adding some color could bring it to life.

I think it actually looks complicated. If you want to use the initials, dump the camera. Otherwise, dump the initials and use the camera as a main symbol. You are squeezing too much information and its looks squeezed.

Careful however as this is tricky, there must be a zillion companies out there using cameras in their logo or using VB in their logos. At least do some local research and see what other production companies in the same area are doing, so you are not getting too close to their immediate competition.

Also the naming under the "icon" is poorly spaced out and misaligned. Work some more on the typesetting.

Answer 3

VB (and also VBP) is already heavily used - it matches with so many possible business names. It's no use to make a new VB. In addition some shark may spot a possiblity to collect money with it. "You have used our design without..."

Name Victoria Baltag is short enough and well memorizable. There's no need to add VB. Of course The V of Victoria could be bigger, but it's also a well used idea, but not totally impossible, if you find a way, how avoid it to be @ictoria, where ictoria is recognized first. An example:

Whole name including "Production" should be well visible. Let the name be the main subject.

Support the name with minimalistic graphical shape (or nothing like in the V-example) - fully abstract or maybe some production gear derivative, but absolutely unique and ideally easy to coarsely draw manually without flashy software effects. If it is production gear, be sure that it's recognizable. Your current shape is complex and not well recognizable.

Here's an example - again using your texts. The checkmark (=done) resembles letter V, but it's not readable.

About color: It's good, but the basic idea should be fine in black and white. Start from it to be sure.

About camera: If a camera must be included, it's a problem. Movie production company cannot use hobby gear, it must at least be something like this guy has:

That monster is very far from simple. More colors, even one grey, would help to include it.

BTW. Try to avoid using a flapper as V. I think no jokes are wanted here.

Answer 4

The design is redundant.

You are trying to be clever and display an old style movie camera with the two reels as the B and a couple of blocks on the side to imply the lens.

But logos are not descriptors.

Does Apple sell apples? Does Shell sell shells (by the seashore?)

(I can’t name a fortune 1000 company where the logo depipts the product or service.)

The words are explicit.

Make a logotype instead.