“Guys I turned your Nike logo from a swoosh to wind blowing dust in a vague swoosh like shape also there’s a foot there so you know where it came from and we’ll stitch that on AAAAAAALLLL your products and guys… Guys? What do you mean I’m fired?”
This is the modern-day equivalent of Frontpage/clipart
I get what you’re saying (esp low-quality clip-art), though lots of clipart was actually vector art (like autotraced from physical art, giving some prominent styles) so would probably make for a better logo than what they generated here.
Looks like they are missing the plot. Logos are supposed to be simple…
MagicShot.ai - Al Logo Geneator
Geat work
anyone with a year of design training will know why the right “logo” is a pile of shit.
anyone with a month of experience printing will know why the right “logo” is a pile of shit.
anyone who has had 5 minutes with genAI will think they’re a design master when they create the “logo” on the right.
I disagree.
Anyone who has spent a few minutes thinking about what a logo is and what it’s used for will be able to tell you that one of these is a logo and the other is… a picture.
No experience in printing, but I guess its impossible to Print that Logo with that Kind of Detail in a timely manner without it looking like shit?
Also, everyone who ever heard about web design and hosting will know that such a picture is impossible to scale up and down, and also that picture will take up literal gigabytes since you can neither use normal PNGs because of the quality nor vector based art (they store the picture as mathematical equasions, so the PC has to render them, but it can be indefinitely made smaller and bigger without it becoming more pixely) because that sort of detail will just be impossible to render on grandmas smart TV from 2010, so you will have to store this picture as PNG in different formats as many times as you want to display that image
No, you understand the printing problem. Any logo needs a vector version so it can be scaled to any size. Lacking that is a non-starter.
And don’t start me on the colors.
I legit thought Lemmy just got ads when I saw this post
I’ve seen so many commercials where a realistic scene fades into the stylized logo that that’s what my mind went to.
The left is a better logo, fewer fine details, easy to silk screen, easy to laser print, hell you could make a branding iron and burn it into wood.
The one on the right is prettier (not necessarily better. I’ve read some comments by people that know more than I do with some valid points). However, to create the image on the right, they probably fed the AI the image from the left, made by a designer.
Honestly, from a design perspective I do think the one on the right is actually better in some respects. Yes, it wouldn’t scale well, there’s too many colours, it’s too busy, but it has some good points. The font choice draws you in more, with less space between the letters making it easier to read at a glance and the ‘f’ creating interest. And the house is actually united with the text, whereas in the left image it feels completely disconnected.
I would be pretty disappointed if I’d paid for a logo and I got the left image tbh, it’s not very interesting or memorable. Yes, fuck AI, but I’m not sure this is the best comparison because both logos suck in different ways.
I don’t like either, but the left one at least scales better for various applications across platforms and media.
Imagine the printing costs of putting variations of the right on all your products? Just the color variety alone would add to the production costs.
And will look like shit even if you manage to do it. Imagine that on a cushion cover after an year of use.
Reminds me of German Designer Kurt Weidemann who redesigned the Logo of German train company Deutsche Bahn in the 90s. He inverted the colors, got rid of one outline — and still saves the company millions over the years because of the paint that is saved putting the logo on all trains. All while modernising the typography, but remaining true to the brand.
This is what design is about — everything else is decoration.
Lol try printing that on merch, dumb dumb. That’s an awful logo. It’s really not even a logo, it’s a scene.
Reminds me of the very first Apple Computer logo:
They dropped that for a simpler logo, and then dropped the simpler logo for an even simpler one.
Yet that is still simple for its monochrome … While the ai logo looks like tacky clip art.
Back in the day I legit wanted someone to make a custom black MacBook case that had the Newton logo instead of the Apple. Imagine how cool it would look glowing!
I would love to see a parallel world where all tech companies logos were all this detailed and old looking
And all the cases had wood paneling
Wait, is that for real?
Yeah they ditched it in favor of the rainbow apple I think before they even started mass production of the Apple ][.
Wow, yeah, that would be awful in most contexts. Imagine trying to print that on the front of a computer haha.
I’m pretty sure it was just a sticker for the first 20 years or so of Macintosh’s life, so I kinda doubt it would have been an actual issue.
Actually, I had one in like 99’ that had one of those cool bubble stickers for the logo. It was the Technicolor apple one not this, obviously, but I don’t see why this couldn’t have worked as a sticker back then
Because if you printed it the size of the Apple logo you’d need a microscope to make out anything on it.
I mean… Stamps
High tech with a 19th century sense of style? I’m sold!
Leather bound user manuals
Cases made of brass and oak
Big clicky switches and knurled knobs
If this was reality, I might get me an apple computer lol
Maybe for the 50th Anniversary Macintosh
Lol “dropped”
Well played.
Even if you took that image and used it to create a black and white illustration, it would be way too busy. The logo on the left isn’t exactly amazing, but it’s decent and checks all the boxes for usability and readability. The one on the right is more like… an image made for an ad which you can’t put on a hat for example. The amount of times I’ve had to explain logo basics to a client who want to do something like the image on the right isn’t great, but they usually understand why these rules are in place after explaining and they generally respect my expertise. But not everyone…
Why is the first thing I thought of Tabitha when I read dumb dumb XD
Someone doesn’t know what a logo is for, I see.
I work in an industry that deals with customer logos almost exclusively. I now get at least one person a week bringing in garbage-tier art they made in Canva or whatever that isn’t made to any standard at all, so they have tons of thin lines, gradients, blurring, etc. Shocker, AI only thinks about making it visually appealing when it won’t translate to a one-color, doesn’t have PMS tones to base it on, no simplified version, etc.
People think making a logo is just that. Just the image itself. They don’t think past what’s in front of them.
That being said, there are also thousands of logos that go through proper design companjes and they pay a lot of money out and get literally just the name in a standard sans serif font or abstracted until it is unrecognizable as a name like KIA or TVA.
https://digitalsynopsis.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/logo-redesigns-rebrands-worst-jaguar.jpeg
https://nataleerushurst.blogspot.com/2022/08/alphabet-company-history.html?m=1
https://1000logos.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/AirAsia-Logo-history.jpg
https://storage.googleapis.com/ftidag_prod/activities/stad-gent-2/logoGent_c100.png
And the list goes on, Verizon, gap, tropicana, jcpenny, etc…
I mean, AI is trash, but it can also be extremely difficult to know if you will get a decent logo after paying thousands or tens/hundreds of euros spent (looking at you Belgium cities using millions of taxpayer euros for bad rebrands).
In my experience, most people have simply never thought about it before. If someone decides they want to open a bakery and they have never had a business before, they haven’t thought about everywhere their new logo will be used unless they get that expertise from someone. I’ve gotten pretty good at explaining these concepts to people and they typically respect my expertise and take my advice, but not everyone 😆
And that’s just it. In the past, you would have contacted a branding firm and paid someone with expertise to do all that for you. Now people think, “Why pay a branding firm when AI can do it in 5 minutes?”
I would think AI art would be perfect for the use case of “here is the general gist of what I want, now turn it into something usable”. I can also imagine basically nobody actually using it that way correctly though lol.
They don’t think past what’s in front of them.
I’m pretty sure you just summarized the human paradigm.
Devil’s advocate: Another way to think of it is that as AI tools mature, we will see more tools make an impact the way template-based web builders transitioned us away from, at best, charmingly kitchy html business websites of '95-'05 that are horribly optimized and broken half the time towards standardized options that cover the basics with curated choices for clients to express themselves without hanging themselves. Yes, the template builders did homogenize business websites, but for all the businesses that weren’t going to/couldn’t pay for a serious web developer/designer anyway I’d rather go to their website and experience a bland predictable layout than experience my browser melting even though there may be a glimmer of creativity from the enthusiastic teenager they hired to build it from scratch (I was that teenager).
We’re all fixated on how AI could not do the work for the top 25% of clients who require high quality professional work. We forget that 75% of clients cheap out for DIY/scam/hack options when it comes to design, resulting in lots of crap in the ether. AI tools have huge potential for smoothing out the low-hanging fruit of basic pain points.
The difference will be that AI doesn’t understand the basics and can’t curate choices to instead it will be a regression to wildly different and unoptimized web pages as each person wants to do their own spin on things instead of listening to experts.
Well no, the AI doesn’t do the curating, the company running the AI-powered platform does the curating. Neural Net AIs aren’t built to understand anything. The company running the platform curates the training, prompt engineering, and non-AI structures (algorithms, rigid parameters, and basic rules) that hone the generative AI into maximizing the desirable kind of outputs and minimizing undesirable outputs for the specific field of tasks.
tbh I prefer a logo with lots of colors and gradients, depth, lighting, etc. These ugly ass flat or outline logos have really ruined things
Personal taste is totally fine, but what you’re describing isn’t a logo, it’s an illustration. A good logo specifically must be simple so that it can be applied across a bunch of different contexts — print, digital, large, small. What if you wanted your logomark as a favicon? Depth and lighting would make it look like a smudge at that size. What about stitching your logo onto a hat?
This is the main issue. Logos are part of a brand system, and generating a logo with AI circumvents all that thought. You get something that might look good, but your whole system becomes super fragile.
Again, there’s no disagreeing with personal taste, it’s just a matter of thoughtful use of the system and medium.
I feel that you’re making the argument that we should compromise on the humanism of prominent and uniquitous pieces of art so that we can print t-shirts more cheaply. You can of course make the same argument about the building costs of modern boxy paneled apartments and office buildings, but that still doesn’t make them any less unpleasant to look at.
I feel that graphics designers (or really, brand managers), over the last 30 or so years, have made daily decisions about the cost effectiveness of something at the expense of beauty, and we now live in the most bland, generic, and tasteless era in modern history. What does a graphic designer even do anymore, besides copying other graphic designers?
To be clear, AI is not the answer. But intuitively, a colored, shaded, 3 dimensional logo is more appealing to me than another flat, generic, 1 dimensional line illustration that says literally nothing about your brand identity.
(Not the original guy that replied to you) I do agree about the blandness of many logos (god I hate flat design) and think the logo on the left is very bland, but the one on the right just does not work in many contexts. There’s a middle ground where it works just fine, but with as much detail as in the AI gen logo it will look awful at small sizes. One is usable as a general purpose logo, the other isn’t.
Try embroidering your “logo with lots of colors and gradients, depth, lighting” on a polo shit and see how little of it actually translates. Or even a one color print job on a mailing. It will look like an unrecognizable hot garbage smudge.
Not only will it look terrible it’ll be significantly more expensive, each color and complication is going to add to the price. A simple logo with a clean silhouette is going to look nice and save money.
It’ll save money, I don’t think it’ll look nice
If you hire a human designer there’s a much higher likelihood of it looking good.
That’s really only suitable if the logo is going be displayed at a larger size on a screen. Many times logos will be displayed much smaller, such as when used as a favicon. When you cram too many details into a small space it just becomes noise. This also applies if people glance at the logo, since too much detail will make it difficult to work out what it is.
Also as other people have mentioned. If you are going to be printing your logo, then you do need to have a design that uses just negative and positive space since it’s easier to print and will look much cleaner.
Additionally it’s pretty common for organizations to have multiple versions of the logo as well. Usually a black and white one, a colored version of it, and versions with and without text. They could also have a more detailed version of the logo as well, but the other versions are more useful, so they may not even bother.
You might just need two versions. The full colour one where the underlying medium supports it well, and a mono version for more restrictive media.
That logo is terrible.
Like, a core component of a good logo is that it’s easily identifiable at a glance at all shapes and sizes and on various backgrounds… complicated photorealistic logos basically lack all of these criteria by default.
This is why you need someone experienced not some ai slop.
“I created” and “with AI” is the newest oxymoron.
Art imitates life
