On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On 13/06/12 07:47, Chad wrote:
1) It scales much nicer. The current version
looks absolutely awful at
higher resolutions, and at lower ends becomes rather featureless. A
version natively designed as an SVG (but keeping the original design
ideas) takes care of that.
In the proposed logo, the lines between the petals are hard to see at
135px, and are almost invisible at 75px. With no shading, it just
looks like a yellow blob.
The solid brown circle in the middle draws the eye, it seems large and
dominating, and it doesn't match the colour of the original.
Indeed, it could use some cleanup. That being said, I like
the original *intent* of it.
I'm not opposed to switching to a vector logo, I
just think we should
try to do a proper job of it, say by contracting a graphic designer.
It doesn't need to be expensive.
We've also got quite a few talented graphic artists amongst the
community, as well as a couple of people inside the Foundation
who are good at this too. Perhaps we should see what they can
come up with first :)
I don't know what file you're using as a
source when you scale up the
logo: I couldn't find Brion's full-resolution original on Commons.
It's in /trunk/artwork in Subversion, admittedly only at 612px width,
still too small for print, but definitely better than trying to scale
it up from 135px.
It would seem a product of me using a poorly sized image
and expecting it to scale. The example in your followup e-mail
does look fine at larger resolutions.
-Chad