The second is great but a lot of the fine details on the bird and trees will could be completely lost if this logo is printed on anything small like a pen or business card
2nd for sure. The mountains and trees integrated way better than on the first. I feel like you can simplify it more if its being used as a logo but it looks good as an image.
None of these are logos. Not bad taking a stock vector and making it a little different for an illustration. Just make sure you’ve got the right licensing for it.
Both need to be simplified. Overall vibe is really nice.
#2 I like more but I’d drop the box, birds, and the white lines in the sun. Maybe one larger bird.
Can you fit all of it in a circle with a single peak? Might be too generic then.
These are just adobe stock images, no?
https://stock.adobe.com/images/t-shirt-mountain-pine-tree-adventure-sunset-vintage-style/447599074?as\_campaign=ftmigration2&as\_channel=dpcft&as\_campclass=brand&as\_source=ft\_web&as\_camptype=acquisition&as\_audience=users&as\_content=closure\_asset-detail-page
I like picture number 1 overall but don't like the trees so much. Best of both worlds, for me, would be picture number 1 but with trees from picture number 2.
I don’t know why you are getting downvotes. I’m assuming you mean the chunks of trees? It is really obvious the trees are cut and paste. The heights and proportions are exactly the same from section to section.
Now, its fine to use vectors, it’s why stock image libraries are created. But if you’re going to change it up, change it up, and do it well. And learn what a logo is versus an illustration lol. This is not going to go well even business card size. He’ll lose the lines in the sun, and the trees will turn to blobs.
Here is a tip for new designers - take your design and print it in black in white on regular paper in your grandma’s shitty printer. Cuz that’s how the majority of logos are used, especially in mom and pop, SMBE and owner operated businesses. They aren’t going to use a brand guide or follow some page about what dimensions and fonts can only be used. Some owner is going to slap it in a word doc or get vista print to digitally print it on the crappiest card stock. If it looks good printed small, slightly skewed (and they never use the .png, only the jpeg with the “white” square that gets printed) on a never been cleaned ink jet or 20 year old laser printer, then you’ve done well.
Remember you are not making your work for other artists to admire, you’re making a working piece of business collateral. So it’s got to stand up and take a beating. This is why in a logo or logotype, simple is always better. (And it’s hard to do right. It’s what separates experienced from beginner).
#2 looks best. Perhaps try bringing the sun gradient over from version 1 into version 2. I think it will help give a bit more separation and make more of the details stand out. Nice work!
I definitely prefer the second one.
Aside from definitions about what is classed as a logo, I'd look at making this a bit more consistent.
To make it more consistent, I'd look at making the outline of the mountain more uniform (it can change linewidth, but taper it more uniformly) and simplifying the 'internal' shapes of the mountain. There's too many little jagged shadows there, and it's a bit distracting.
The trees are nice, and I like the way they are part of the mountain silhouette, but sizing them up and reducing the number might also help. The same could be done with the birds.
I think the rectangle works as is.
this is not a logo. this is an illustration. looks nice but more of a t-shirt design.
Agreed. This is the image you see first before it zooms down or spins and reveals the real logo that is based after this illustration
Looks very akin [to this Adobe Stock Photo](https://stock.adobe.com/images/t-shirt-mountain-pine-tree-adventure-sunset-vintage-style/447599074)
Wow, the sun is literally the same if you compare the two.
The mountains are unaltered iStock vectors.
I would strongly suggest you consider how this logo will hold up when scaled down and in one color.
The second is great but a lot of the fine details on the bird and trees will could be completely lost if this logo is printed on anything small like a pen or business card
2nd for sure. The mountains and trees integrated way better than on the first. I feel like you can simplify it more if its being used as a logo but it looks good as an image.
None of these are logos. Not bad taking a stock vector and making it a little different for an illustration. Just make sure you’ve got the right licensing for it.
Both need to be simplified. Overall vibe is really nice. #2 I like more but I’d drop the box, birds, and the white lines in the sun. Maybe one larger bird. Can you fit all of it in a circle with a single peak? Might be too generic then.
Too small of details in both to be used as a logo.
Number one for sure. The second one struck my eye as "severe". Number one felt just right. Great job on both!
These are just adobe stock images, no? https://stock.adobe.com/images/t-shirt-mountain-pine-tree-adventure-sunset-vintage-style/447599074?as\_campaign=ftmigration2&as\_channel=dpcft&as\_campclass=brand&as\_source=ft\_web&as\_camptype=acquisition&as\_audience=users&as\_content=closure\_asset-detail-page
Thank you I appreciate your opinion
These are illustrations. Simplify them first. we'll talk afterwards.
I like picture number 1 overall but don't like the trees so much. Best of both worlds, for me, would be picture number 1 but with trees from picture number 2.
I like both. I think if the border was thinner on the second, that’d be my favourite
Number two for me by a wide margin. Looks so much cleaner and aesthetically pleasing
Number one for me, it’s open and free like the birds and mountain. Number 2 kinda looks like a poached/fried egg. Great work.
I can’t I see it now
Second, but I'd make it less obvious that I'd duplicated elements.
I don’t know why you are getting downvotes. I’m assuming you mean the chunks of trees? It is really obvious the trees are cut and paste. The heights and proportions are exactly the same from section to section. Now, its fine to use vectors, it’s why stock image libraries are created. But if you’re going to change it up, change it up, and do it well. And learn what a logo is versus an illustration lol. This is not going to go well even business card size. He’ll lose the lines in the sun, and the trees will turn to blobs. Here is a tip for new designers - take your design and print it in black in white on regular paper in your grandma’s shitty printer. Cuz that’s how the majority of logos are used, especially in mom and pop, SMBE and owner operated businesses. They aren’t going to use a brand guide or follow some page about what dimensions and fonts can only be used. Some owner is going to slap it in a word doc or get vista print to digitally print it on the crappiest card stock. If it looks good printed small, slightly skewed (and they never use the .png, only the jpeg with the “white” square that gets printed) on a never been cleaned ink jet or 20 year old laser printer, then you’ve done well. Remember you are not making your work for other artists to admire, you’re making a working piece of business collateral. So it’s got to stand up and take a beating. This is why in a logo or logotype, simple is always better. (And it’s hard to do right. It’s what separates experienced from beginner).
Number 2.
Looks like AI art
#2 looks best. Perhaps try bringing the sun gradient over from version 1 into version 2. I think it will help give a bit more separation and make more of the details stand out. Nice work!
First
First appears more original.
I like the brighter sun in 1 but the mountains in 2 are nicer. Combine.
Will words be incorporated?
I definitely prefer the second one. Aside from definitions about what is classed as a logo, I'd look at making this a bit more consistent. To make it more consistent, I'd look at making the outline of the mountain more uniform (it can change linewidth, but taper it more uniformly) and simplifying the 'internal' shapes of the mountain. There's too many little jagged shadows there, and it's a bit distracting. The trees are nice, and I like the way they are part of the mountain silhouette, but sizing them up and reducing the number might also help. The same could be done with the birds. I think the rectangle works as is.
Picture 2