>>239224Not him, but I've worked in gd and gradient fills are cancer to a graphic identity system for a couple of reasons.
1. Successful logo designs are and always will be high contrast because that's how the human brain and eye work. They perceive shape first, color second, and gradients interfere with both.
2. Gradients scale miserably both on-screen and in print. Logo systems that insist on using them have fallback high contrast versions which over time have a habit of replacing the original because of 1. above. While stochastic screening had the potential to make gradients look good at all sizes, the industry abandoned it because in the long run, solid colors are simpler to print crisply without error.
3. Eventually your client is going to require their logo be applied to non-screen, non-print applications where the concept of color blending doesn't literally exist and the cheats look bad. Embroidery, cloisonné, vinyl magnets, etc. I've been an embroidery digitizer and while we can fake it with interlocking alternating rows of stitches, the end result doesn't work very well at smaller scales.
This is why GISes are developed by art directors who've had to navigate these kinds of issues.
Also, if you're going to reverse out serif letters against a dark background, use a heavier weight without exception.What looks like a regular weight will invariably look lighter weight when reversed out.
Return to the original design and synthesize a globe whose interior looks both like landmasses on water AND hands shaking; it's the kind of visual pun people immediately catch subconsciously and a few years later turn into MIND = BLOWN memeshit.
>>239128>Start again, on paper, black and white only, sketch 20 different ideas and critique them all before doing anything digital. Critique them as if someone is presenting you the idea and your billion dollar companies reputation is on the line.Also, this. Hand for designing, computer for cleanup and vectorization.
