SFN Logo Contest (free shirt for the winner!)

[ydoaPs]

One more, Cap'ns idea:

 

 

 

That's actually what I was going to suggest....perhaps with brackets for style, though. See what I get for going out to sea? Not a free shirt!

 

[math][\int{F(n)}][/math]

'The Original'

[mooeypoo]

I am trying to include scienceforums.net in there anyways, for "branding" purposes.

 

We're calling ourselves SFN, but we're not sfn.net or sfn.com, so we want to make some kind of connection to the address so people remember us if they visit once or twice.

 

But I'll try your idea with the brackets when I get back home

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Also, try tinkering with the size of the integral sign. It may look better if it's smaller so it "flows" with the FN part.

[mooeypoo]

Actually, if anyone can find a better sign it would really help -- I found one that was small and mirrored, I had to play with it a bit.

[The Bear's Key]

Awesome, mooey. I like the first one in post #47. I like toastywombel's attempts too.

 

 

Third and fifth images are in the public domain.

[mooeypoo]

k, here it is:

 

 

 

Also, I tweaked the chemistry ones:

 

 

Edited March 18, 2010 by mooeypoo

[toastywombel]

I really dig the lens flare thing. Can we add that back in?

 

Alright, well I like to note, i like the change the bear's key made to my previous submission (changing angles of the electron trails around the atom).

 

I will try to redo what was done and add in the lens flair effect.

 

Another note, nice job mooey, your logos put mine to shame

[mooeypoo]

thanks toasty, I think your idea is great I just wanted to see stuff that are different than the one we have.. just.. test

 

Anyways, ydoaps asked for a slightly different version, here it is:

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Integral sign's a bit jagged, isn't it? Antialiasing may be a good idea.

[mooeypoo]

Actually, i tried to make the integral thinner.. unsuccessfully. I think this is better?

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yeah, that looks great.

[mooeypoo]

I took a few ideas from Cap'n and from toasty and combined them together, see how you like this one:

 

 

And another tweak:

 

[toastywombel]

I took a few ideas from Cap'n and from toasty and combined them together, see how you like this one:

 

 

And another tweak:

 

 

I really like this, it is nice mooey. I was curious to see what lens flair looked like on it.

 

[mooeypoo]

I have to say, I don't like the lens flare idea.. Today's style of logos is sharp, and the lens flare makes it blurry. Also, it makes it a problem to plug it into different colors or play with it (every time you want to insert it on another color, you need to re-make the background).

 

How 'bout we put the lens flare further out on the logo bar? So it makes the background less 'boring' but keeps the logo clear and crisp?

 

Examples:

 

 

Or, without one:

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

BRW, guys, don't forget that there nees to be room for the google ads.. so whichever logo we choose, this is more like how it's going to look (minus the colors we will likely adjust):

 

 

 

and

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If we're going to have a background, I think there are better options than lens flare.

 

Also, I like the irregular angles of the ovals in the current logo. The integral's fun though.

[mooeypoo]

If we're going to have a background, I think there are better options than lens flare.

 

Also, I like the irregular angles of the ovals in the current logo. The integral's fun though.

Less balance. Okay, how's this:

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Cool. I still like the current logo's rings better (darker/thicker on one end), but I like the integral and colors on this.

 

Are the balls on the rings supposed to represent something?

[mooeypoo]

Electrons. I can take them off:

 

[Phi for All]

If we're going to have a background, I think there are better options than lens flare.

Something astronomical might be nice. To balance out the mathiness of the logo.

 

Which brings me to ask this question: Are we getting lost in the concept with the logo? It's very clever but the brackets don't really focus on anything if that integral isn't clearly an S. I mean, we all get it, but will everyone? That's the purpose of a logo.

 

I don't have a problem with the regular rings on the ovals because it has a slight illusory effect of movement anyway. I thought I liked the electrons, but seeing it without them I like it better. The SCIENCEFORUMS.NET might be tucked in a bit too close to the rings, which seems efficient but isn't very clean. I'm always torn between the efficiency of a clever use of space and how clean and easy to read it is.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Indeed. We need to make sure the integral/S will be noticed by people who don't know what an integral is. We'll have to tinker with it.

 

I agree with the URL being shoved too close -- I think it should be centered under the sf(n) instead. We can stand using fifty extra pixels of space.

[tomgwyther]

Thought I'd keep in...

This is my design as seen on the new style SFN pages.

 

Keeping the Golden Ratio Idea, (Golden ratio being present Science, nature, art, maths biology, physics, infinite but bounded, simple yet complex etc etc) both with and without contoured edges.

 

have a looky.

 

 

[mooeypoo]

Something astronomical might be nice. To balance out the mathiness of the logo.

 

Which brings me to ask this question: Are we getting lost in the concept with the logo? It's very clever but the brackets don't really focus on anything if that integral isn't clearly an S. I mean, we all get it, but will everyone? That's the purpose of a logo.

 

I don't have a problem with the regular rings on the ovals because it has a slight illusory effect of movement anyway. I thought I liked the electrons, but seeing it without them I like it better. The SCIENCEFORUMS.NET might be tucked in a bit too close to the rings, which seems efficient but isn't very clean. I'm always torn between the efficiency of a clever use of space and how clean and easy to read it is.

For the sake of branding our *proper* url, I think having "ScienceForums.net" somewhere is much more important than people immediately recognizing "SFN". If we had the sfn.com or .net address, then we'd be having a different discussion, but since we don't, it's more important for people to remember 'scienceforums' and we can have a bit more leeway in how the abbreviation looks.

 

 

That said, I kinda liked the S^F=N one and the "biohazard" one more, but we can also make the integral more curly and maybe more "s-like".

 

I am not too much in love with the 'golden ratio' idea. It reminds me too much of the pseudoscience that accompanies it. Yeah, I know it's the pseudoscience that stole the real symbol, but still. I am not sure I like it.

 

How do you guys like the color-scheme and font-styles of my set of logos? I wouldn't mind taking the golden-ratio idea and wombel's tweak and play with them with the color scheme and stylized "SCIENCEFORUMS.NET" I made. Of course, in terms of the competition, the credit with remain with toastywombel and tomgwyther (hence, if those are chosen, you guys will get the shirt! ). I'm just wondering if - in case you guys like it - I can make all the ideas under the same relative 'style' of color-set, so when we judge the ideas they are all equally suitable to the new design.

 

~moo

[Phi for All]

For the sake of branding our *proper* url, I think having "ScienceForums.net" somewhere is much more important than people immediately recognizing "SFN". If we had the sfn.com or .net address, then we'd be having a different discussion, but since we don't, it's more important for people to remember 'scienceforums' and we can have a bit more leeway in how the abbreviation looks.

Can we have one that's even simpler then, with just the url (the s, f and n can be white, the rest in light blue), with the oval rings as the background (that might require changing the color)? I agree that the url is what people need, and the coloring will give us the SFN we like, all in the same logo.

 

And tomgwyther, I really like what you have (phi, golden ratio, yeah baby), but like mooeypoo said, it has too many pseudo-scientific connotations to be so prevalent in the logo.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

tomgwyther does make the interesting point that we'll have to fit the Google ads in somewhere. It would be nice if we didn't have to worry about paying the bills...

 

Hmm, now I have to think about where to put them.

[mooeypoo]

Not that I mind sharing credit, but it was I who raised the issue of the google ads. What we could do is put them between the forums. I don't think it's horribly distracting, and we could fit more than one. Not horrible.

 

As for where to put them in a thread-view, maybe between the black-area (logo part) and the thread itself. It's not percfect but it works. Otherwise, we can put it on the side, vertically instead of horizontally (like in gmail).

 

I don't think it is that bad to have it next to the logo, honestly.. and if we don't want it there, we should find something else to put there.. it'll be a bit empty.

 

 

~moo

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Can we have one that's even simpler then, with just the url (the s, f and n can be white, the rest in light blue), with the oval rings as the background (that might require changing the color)? I agree that the url is what people need, and the coloring will give us the SFN we like, all in the same logo.

 

And tomgwyther, I really like what you have (phi, golden ratio, yeah baby), but like mooeypoo said, it has too many pseudo-scientific connotations to be so prevalent in the logo.

Yah, I'll work on it when I am done with my QM exam.

 

 

Oh, and I showed the logos to a good friend of mine who's a professional designer. She liked them, but she said something that I agree with completely: We should choose *either* the orbitals, *or* the integral. Putting them both into one logo makes the logo too cramped and messy, as if we couldn't decide which of them we want.

 

I agree.

 

 

And I still like the biohazard more