Mark Shewmaker wrote:
The technical details are unimportant as far as logos go.
In fact, even most of the nontechnical results are not
really so important.
The logo needn't refer to *why* the sender could be
trusted, or why we can now detect forgeries purporting
to be him, or any of the technical reasons for either
of these things.
It especially doesn't need to even imply that the
recipient has to do any work.
All of this is very true.
(Magnifying glasses and wax seals imply that someone has
to look through the magnifying glass, or someone has to
examine the wax seal.
Yes, but it does not necessarily represent work. They are used as
symbols.
An envelope being handed to the recipient, with both
the sender and recipient holding the envelope--looking
almost as if the two parties are shaking each other's
hands, just separated by the length of the envelope.
I like the idea, making it into a logo is another story. I'll see what I
can do for this one.
I'm afraid that my fears about the wax seal were founded. The 100-pixel
high does not look too shabby for a first draft:
http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/seal/step4.jpg
I was not able to keep the serif font used in the current logo though;
looks like crud when embossed.
But unfortunately the 35-pixel high is unreadable :-(
http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/seal/step5.jpg
With this size, no matter how high or bright I emboss the SPF letters in
the seal, it's a no go. However, some variations including the tag line
"Protected by SPF" in dark letters on the side of the envelope could be
tested. I also have put the cast shadow. Tomorrow.
As always, comments are welcomed. And please, don't say that the current
logos suck (I did not design them, BTW). First, they don't; second,
saying it and producing better ones are two different things.
Michel
"Artists copy. Great artists steal" [Vincent Van Gogh]
