I think this is very nice! Maybe some small issues with the execution. It’s hard to tell without zoom but it looks like the right side is not entirely round where the outer shapes end? So it doesn’t look 100% balanced? That’s what I guess without seeing close up.
LogoBeach, BrandLake, ... hmmm … we definitely need a logo marketplace…. agreed!
I think the reviewer gave you some valuable tips here.
The shape this just too blurry and complicated, it does not have any well-defined lines, so will be difficult to apply this to your branding. It looks more like a blurred stamp then a clean logo shape.
Hope this helps
That’s the one! Just logged on to post this … Thanks SeaLord
There is an application which lets you preview. It’s a third-party plug-in – I saw it on one of the forums.
I’ll dig it up and post a link here when I find it again … Must have that book mark somewhere!!
I must not have seen the thread, but i dont think taking elements from a purchased item and them re selling them as your own is a good thing and perhaps the people who do it deserve to be pointed out. If this was allowed the market would be destoyed and creative people who made it in the first place will miss out. How can people get better if they just use things they did not create? Just my opinion.
Copy and paste is not good, that’s why they are licensing laws. We are supposed to be the creatives here, or create items which others can make use of.
On the other hand I think they should also be a difference between items.
Just a quick example: if for every brochure I design I also had to design an entire icon set I would be releasing one brochure every six months.
I think there should be a difference between using other people’s items as your main design feature, or using small items to complement your design.
I work around it by having a set of license free icon collections which I then refer to.
However, I think it would be much more appropriate if I could actually purchase a set (without having to dish out $300) and reuse some of those icons in my design. After all, these icons are just one very small detail I add to all the work I did on the brochure design. And it really is not very sensible to design an entire set of icons every time I do that…
That’s just one example where I think there should be difference Between what is a “complimentary add-on” and a “main design feature”.
After all, what is more value for the buyer? If I use three icons from a readily available icon set here at GR in my design, I can refer to that icon set, and my buyer can purchase that set for a small amount of money and complement my design with any icons he may need. Everybody wins: I do because I can offer a more complete solution (without having to design a complete icon set for every brochure), the buyer does because he can complement my design with a complete icon set and the icon designer does because with every brochure I sell he has a good chance of selling an icon set.
the only typography and style I would agree on here are the actors namely the top. All the rest is either too simple, too generic, and not quite right in terms of dimension.
Try something Fatah and more present for the main “horror night”. Then the “hold your breath” should not really be your run-of-the-mill sans font type. That looks like straight out of a generic word document. Browse some fun sites and find something a little more inventive here.
The type at the bottom seems a little lost. You seem to mix things up randomly. And I would just get rid of the “SEFO005 presents” bit at the top. That just looks like It doesn’t belong there, it doesn’t fit in terms of style.
Hope this helps
okay, here’s things I can see:
1) the gradients on the sliders, the knocked out parts are either too soft, not soft enough. I would go for either or. At the moment they just look a little smudged. Not soft enough to be really subtle, and not crisp enough to be really tight. That also goes for the slight buttons and other knockouts.
2) the gradients on the buttons, especially the hover seem to be too bright. You cannot actually see the word “hover” stand out. All in all the gradients do not perfectly define the shape. They seem to just make it either brighter or less bright and the shape gets a little lost underneath them.
3) The question marks and exclamation marks on the little round buttons do not seem to be perfectly aligned. In fact they seem a little thin and a little too high
4) all the insets, if in fact they are insets all supposed to be insets do not seem to be very clear. If they are insets then they are lacking the clearly defined lines. If they are not, then it’s probably a little too simple and lacking depth.
In general, look at the crispness of the lines and the attention to detail you see in some of the top-selling items In this category. I do not think that your item does match the quality of something like this:http://graphicriver.net/item/controlled-gui-graphical-user-interface/307799?WT.ac=search_thumb&WT.seg_1=search_thumb&WT.z_author=cazoobi
If it was in another category, you may get away with something that is not perfect. But everything that buttons and UI, really only perfection will work. And looking at the zoomed in image of your item there are quite a few things I can spot straightaway which can be improved upon.
Hope this helps
The same category. Web elements/buttons. This is ridiculous. How can I see what the author is the inspector?
Sorry, I thought there was a separate category for user interfaces. Either way, the buttons/user interfaces category is one of the most difficult to get items accepted for.
Also from the preview images it is hard to really see the detail. The images are fairly small maybe you could post a section with a zoom into the detail. There may be things the reviewer saw we cannot see from the small previews.
Usually the name of the reviewer is part of the rejection e-mail.