Choose the best logo from 2 choices.

[Pixel_Outlaw]

I'm in a computer design course and I'm supposed to create a company logo for myself.

Which is best?

[MX7]

The top one. The crevices in the barrel make for a more interesting image.

[JoshF]

The first one. Maybe you could add a bullet.

[Pixel_Outlaw]

This is my current problem.

I too like the first one but you see that is the front of the cylinder. You would never see a bullet inside. The other one is the rear of the cylinder and you would see all of the bullets. I'm fighting something that is visually interesting vs something that shows bullets.

[Turrican]

I think the W is a bit too far compared to the other letters... is that intentional?

By the way, this looks cool... Did you think to enter the Shmups Logo Competition?

[zinger]

Top barrel looks cooler, but in terms of layout the bottom logo looks a lot better. More uniform

[Pixel_Outlaw]

I still have to adjust the spacing between elements this is a rough concept.

I probably won't enter the logo competition unless I have extra time. I'm really tied down with schoolwork.

[Vexorg]

I went for the first one.

If possible, I would also look at reducing the line width on the letters in "Outlaw", and maybe distress them a bit as well.

[worstplayer]

I think bottom one looks better.

[Mortificator]

I too like the first one but you see that is the front of the cylinder. You would never see a bullet inside.

You can see the bullets in a revolver chamber from the front, and there's a similar "circle within a circle" effect if it's loaded with hollow-points. But I don't how how that would turn out in a logo.

[Stormwatch]

Neither. Keep image and text as distinct elements.

[iatneH]

Neither. Keep image and text as distinct elements.

Stormwatch has a point here. While I liked the top logo more, the bottom logo looks more like "Outlaw". I actually initially read the first as "utlaw", and thought wutlaw? slutlaw? Didn't have that problem with the bottom logo.

[MX7]

Doesn't matter if people can't read it. It just needs to be a striking image. The longer you spend trying to decode it, the longer it will stay in your head. Think of it from a psychological perspective. Innit.

[it290]

Professional opinion : neither one really works, also the concept is pretty hackneyed. I read both as 'UTLAW' initially. The kerning between the 'A' and 'W' is horrendous (as Turrican pointed out). I think you should scrap this idea and go with something else entirely. If you insist on the wild west theme, I would just make a highly detailed bullet, viewed from the back, and use that for the 'O', while using some other typeface for the rest of the text - probably a geometric sans (try Futura or Avenir Medium or Heavy in all caps). Remember, your mark needs to work at small sizes (reduce it to 1.5" or 1", print it out, and look at it), and it also needs to work in a one color version so that you can fax it, etc.

You should also avoid using 'novelty' typefaces if you can help it. Either stick with something legible and then modify it or pick something that suits your concept in a not-generic way. If you do end up modifying the type, DO NOT stretch it or screw around too much with curved segments. Keep line weights consistent. The knife tool in Illustrator is your best friend here. Start with sketches and then go to the computer _only_ once you feel your concept is solid. If you want some good critique, try posting on typophile.com's critique forum.

Doesn't matter if people can't read it. It just needs to be a striking image. The longer you spend trying to decode it, the longer it will stay in your head. Think of it from a psychological perspective. Innit.

Umm, no. If you want people to remember it they're going to have to be able to read it. This isn't some multi-million dollar company that can afford to just use some abstract mark without readable text (even then, you'll find that this is rarely done). Name recognition is key. When you see well done marks that _are_ abstract and/or do not immediately define what the company is about, they are invariably really simple and instantly understandable (visually if not conceptually). Complex is okay for some personal project or the like, but no one has the time to sit there and decode your logo.

Neither. Keep image and text as distinct elements.

I generally agree with this, although if you can work an image into the type without it being overbearing, then go for it. A couple of subtle changes will go a lot farther and look a lot cooler than something which is totally overworked. Otherwise, either separate them or just go with an appropriate type mark (I do this a lot when the client needs something REAL FAST).

[Herr Schatten]

What it290 says.

I don't know why, but when people think about creating a logo, the first thing they think about is usually which letter they could possibly turn into an image of something they think is connected with the client. In the vast majority of cases, this doesn't work out, because you tend to not read the letter in question as part of the word(s) unless it's strongly stylized and subtly worked into the typeface.

Better forget about it, choose a fitting, non-clichéd typeface and add the picture part as a seperate design element, if you really want to keep it.

[D]

Bottom one, perhaps you might even consider shrinking the O a bit to the same height as the other letters.

[Mortificator]

[lgb]

From here, the top one. The bottom gun shows bullets, but the top gun is pointing at you. Though this may seem menacing, it's a nice touch imo.

Now if you wish to change it, I say this; regulate that O to the same size as the other letters. Take the gun part out of the O, and make the O slightly fancier than the other letters if you wish. Instead, have the words "outlaw" engraved on the side of a gun.

[Pixel_Outlaw]

Thanks guys. I think I'm going to revamp the whole thing. Maybe make a large revolver cylinder behind a complete "Outlaw".