October 19th, 2010

Around the House with a 50mm

I recently jumped into the DSLR market and bought a Nikon D90. I have been extremely happy with both the D90 and the 18-105mm lens that came with it. After spending quite a bit of time testing out my new gear, my photographer friend suggested I try out his 50mm lens. I am very much an amateur photographer, and had no idea the difference in tone you can create with a simple lens switch. I was amazed at the results. I have always loved rich still life photography with a very shallow depth of field. With the 50mm I was able to achieve that soft style I have always admired. The photos below are what came out of the experiment with the 50mm. I was quite happy with how they turned out. The full set is viewable on my flickr photostream.

5089673913_e1b77ce6ed_z5089674773_821616047c_z5090281412_de4f872586_z5089680373_16c9115a8a_z5089677575_902b067a88_z

October 15th, 2010

Control + Z

gap_logo_back

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand we’re back. That was quick. Less than a week of public outcry, Gap has hit the old undo on the corporate rebrand. Which brings up the big question of: Was this a serious rebrand attempt? or merely a ploy to see how strong their existing brand is. I would have to side with the latter. Aside from the website headers, I did not see any change to the store branding, tags, labels etc. that would lead me to believe this was a permanent solution. A friend of mine suggested it to be an experiment to see how strong their brand sits with consumers. I would have to agree with that. I have a hard time believing Gap would flip flop so quickly had they invested thousands of dollars in updating their entire catalog of branding materials. Until I see piles of rebranded tags sitting in a dumpster somewhere, I am siding with those that believe this is a huge marketing scheme. Regardless of the motivations, I am happy to see the old logo back.

October 8th, 2010

Gaptastrophe

gap_logo

Identity is everywhere. Logos bombard us from every direction throughout our daily routine. The general public could care less about what a logo looks like, how cool it is, or how appropriate it is to them; the customer. Designers on the other hand, are constantly critiquing every brand they see. Making judgements on concept, typography, color palette, the list goes on. These are natural instincts to most creatives. But every now and then, a logo redesign to a major brand pops up that attracts the attention of both the design community and the general public. This brings me to the main point of this blog post: The new Gap logo. Debuted on monday, the new logo features Helvetica bold with a blue gradient square behind the type. My first response was: this has got to be a joke. But, alas, i would be wrong. Since then, there have been numerous articles detailing the awfulness of the redesign, prompting several blogs to start design contests as well as others allowing you to “crap” your logo. There have also been several news sources saying that this could be a hugely successful PR stunt. I surely hope so because this new brand is not helping their cause. I would put this debacle up there with the Tropicana and Pepsi redesigns along with the 2012 London olympics logo. I can’t say that the original Gap logo was an example of logo perfection, but the equity it had built over time put it in the top tier of iconic, recognizable brands. Not that I am against a company wanting to redefine itself, but there are right ways and then there is this. Nothing about the new look seems logical or well thought out. I would really like to hear what the rationale behind the redesign was. Because at this point, it begs for an explanation.

October 5th, 2010

Inception in the 1950’s

I saw this today and had to share. Inception was my favorite movie of the summer and below is what the trailer might have looked like if it were released in the 50’s. It was really done well and I commend Cinematic Jackass for having the extra time to create a great trailer homage to the brilliant films of the 40’s and 50’s.