Vote for our Logo

[Dienekes]

1.



2.



3.

[Racial Reality]

I vote for a hybrid of 1 and 2. I like the current logo because its simple design blends in with the header and matches the style of the board, but it would look much nicer done in the font AWAR used in his logo (with bigger lettering, though).

[alex221166]

Number 2 is nice, but I would personally replace the skull with another face, or with some sort of art-piece.

Number 1 is simple, perhaps too simple.

I don't like number 3.

[Melnorme]

The black background of the Mongoloid woman in #3 looks ... wrong.

[Arawn]

1 is too simple, 3 is badly made and looks like some commercial or something.
Id go with Alex's suggestion for an improved number 2.

[Racial Reality]

I can't reproduce AWAR's lettering, so this is the closest I can get to what I'm talking about:

[Dienekes]

racialreality said:

I can't reproduce AWAR's lettering, so this is the closest I can get to what I'm talking about:

I like this one better than the temporary one. Voter turnout has been overwhelming... Let's wait on this for a while.

[Arawn]

Well i've withheld my vote hoping for better choices.
If i absolutly had to choose one, i'd go with the improved first one racialreality posted.

[rusalka]

I voted for the first one because as a logo, it works best. #3, although I kind of like the idea, has a lot of problems and contextually is not working very well either as it is hard to portray all races and 3 is not enough to earn the title "biodiversity". #2 is too detailed for such a small logo; I think too much detail and too much color doesn't work well with limited space. Also, banners should be really simple and to the point as the colors are really hard to produce exactly on a digital environment and best designs are usually achieved with simple 2 or 3 monotones.

#1 has a type problem, which I believe can be easily solved. The lettering is wrong, I don't know which program was used to place the type but it's not aligned properly; which is of course a minor problem, and maybe only visible to my critical eye which has to review at least 30 works a week and "critique" them properly. It's probably the font that is used that's giving the problem, although I really like the typeface. What I suggest is, either place each letter manually and kern them one by one, in a program like Freehand; or use a very, very similar but approved typeface. Some typefaces are "fake", that is made to copy a certain (but very expensive to buy) typeface that's already a industry standart.

Okay I shut up. I like the first one, period.

[galvez]

rusalka said:

#2 is too detailed for such a small logo; I think too much detail and too much color doesn't work well with limited space. Also, banners should be really simple and to the point as the colors are really hard to produce exactly on a digital environment and best designs are usually achieved with simple 2 or 3 monotones.

I voted for number 2.

Anyway, might it be a good idea to switch logos every now and then or experiment a little?

[WB]

I'm pretty new and I bet this thread is old as hell but number 2 is pretty cool.

Three looks kind of typically multi-culturalist. Without the text it could be a community center flyer.

[nordicyouth]

I'd vote for number 3 cause the chick on the far left is sort of hot, and I'd hit that given a small amount of Tequila.

I am offended that the Nordic group isn't represented, seeing as it is an extreme human racial type.

j/k ;D

[Elscapo]

I voted 2 it looks the most presentable, the pictures are a bit choppy in 3 the background is dark

[It-Alien]

Can i try design one logo ? ;D

[It-Alien]

4.

Anyone like this logo ?