Normal practise is for the "marketing department" to have the logo
available in a selection of forms, for different purposes. Think of
different formats (square, 16:9, full-width banner etc), different
resolutions, different colour depths, perhaps a monochrome version etc.
In order to protect the "brand image" companies will have a selection
available which have all been individually "crafted" to look good for
the use case for which they are intended, and all "approved". The last
thing you want is random third parties all hacking it about in their own
way - then you would lose control of your own image. It's a bit of work,
but it only has to be sorted out once (per rebranding). The spot colours
also need specification of course, at least as RGB, CMYK and possibly
PMS. Don't forget that not all colours can be represented in RGB.

On 2016-10-15 11:11, Frederik Ramm wrote:

> Hi,
> On 10/15/2016 08:03 AM, Yves wrote: 
>> I personally find the 'negative magnifier' elegant, and the
>> disappearance of the 0s and 1s a good way to simplify this logo and make
>> it easier to scale.
> I wonder what the established wisdom in the design community is about
> this. I mean, many people view the web site on a high-dpi screen with
> about a bazillion calibrated colours and we could have a super crafty
> logo with gradients and shadows and a shiny 3D effect and so on.
> Then there are use cases where you want to logo on a T-shirt or in
> 16x16px in the corner of a map.
> Does that automatically mean that you need to have the
> lowest-common-denominator logo that uses only 4 colours and is easily
> scalable - or are there ways to have a polished logo for large displays
> together with a scalable version and both still retain the same visual
> identity?
> Of course even a simple logo can look good in large print but I do like
> it about the current logo that there are details to discover when you
> look closer.
> Bye
> Frederik
talk mailing list

Reply via email to