Here's that design process in full:
- Receive requirement
- Sketch out rough
- Get approval
- Create artwork
- Review
- Create finished artwork
- Preflight and proof
- Notice reflection is upside-down*
Thanks to Qx!
Levi's: Reflective Defective
Here's that design process in full:
Thanks to Qx!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
64 comments:
I like that it says "Quality Never Goes Out of Style" above an nice example of non-quality work.
EPIC FAIL.
Complete disaster! lol!
Most likely an "IllustratorDisaster."
Actually, looks like this was intentional.
Not obvious but the graphic under looks like an asshole. I don't get the whole rear design. There must be a weird block going on in the Art Dept.
In addition to the reflection fail and the maroon sphincter... how many legs are horses supposed to have?
Seems pretty likely to me that a suit who didn't understand how light works told the artist "Just fix the bit where the name is upside down."
I agree with henchook. This looks intentional.
Please opt for less posts and more good ones.
yeah looks intentional to me; the "reflection" is also in perspective. I just don't think a apple-style reflection was what they were going for.
I think it's intentional as well. If the V were reflected upside-down, your eye would read it as an X.
@rob-t-firefly: There's a farmer standing with each horse. The Levi's logo shows a pair of horses trying to pull a pair of jeans apart.
Okay, to the standard "this is intentional" crowd:
1. If it is "intentional" aka what the AD wanted, then it's spectacularly awful design.
2. Horse-Farmers at bottom. Since when is bestiality good design??
Good grief, you guys would be the world's easiest clients to impress.
Rookie mistake
Aren't those Homer Simpson's pants at the bottom that the horses are trying to pull apart?
Just because it was possibly intentional does not stop it from being a disaster! What kind of an idiot thought that this was a good idea?
Whether "intentional" or not, it still qualifies as a disaster. That's just not how light works.
I agree with Andrew that some ignorant suit might have said to the designer about fixing that "upside down bit".
I work in an agency environment and sometimes the decision makers miss the forest for the trees. They get so caught up in "hey why is that logo crooked" or "move that image over 1 pixel" (i have actually had that one), that they forget to look at the overall image or idea.
It could be that some suit was so worried about the protecting the "brand identity" that he forgot about the how reflected images work.
Intentional? Sure. I'm positive that Levi's wanted to make themselves look stupid on purpose.
"Levi's: We don't know how reflections work, but you can still trust us to make symmetrical clothes without putting one leg on backwards. For serious."
Being 'intentional', though I doubt this was, does not stop this image from being fucking shit. Because there is nothing to explain to the viewer why the fucking reflection is the wrong fucking way up.
And if you think that being 'intentional' makes this image all right, then you're fucking shit too.
Sigh. IT IS A DISASTER. Awesome one, too. :P
option 1: so what if it's intentional, it looks like shit.
option 2: i'm pretty sure Andrew got that right.
hard one!
Why does it have to be a reflection? It's just floating on a red background, which is not reflecting anywhere; I see it as just a duplication of the brand name. And yes, they could have gone with something more interesting and better-executed.
As for the bottom logo: If we could see it more clearly we would all probably have a different view of it, but I would hardly call it "bestiality."
Does that make me shit, David? Can I stand next to your pedestal? Because if you think you can call everyone shit for having an opinion then you must be the God of All Design and as such should be worshipped.
It's a reflection => shit.
It's not a reflection => shit.
Those are your options. You either choose shit, or you don't.
I would say that the "star" in the middle says it all as far as were it's coming from!
I think it's intention too, but that doesn't mean i think it's a good idea. This whole Apple-esque reflection fad has got to go. It made sense when Apple did it, because it was as if they were putting their iPod on a shiny surface. But in this case it definitely makes no sense at all. For one because it isn't even a reflection anymore and for two: why would it be reflecting at all? It's type on a flat red backdrop. It wasn't a mistake, it just doesn't work.
I think it's more likely that part of that design process was:
* Artist does the reflection correctly
* Review committee complains that the reflected logo isn't readable and that they want more brand recognition.
* Artist is forced to flip the reflection
I agree with David...I think it's horrible either way...
Reflection...well, obviously that's a fail.
Not a reflection...having the name repeated but angled and fading like an Apple reflection...but NOT a reflection? That's just...stupid. It looks like a reflection and will make them look stupid. Which isn't really a great way to bring in the customers...
I wonder why these people don't seem to think anything is a PSD, bother to keep dropping by this blog anyway?
Because they think that we are going to be impressed by their Internet genius.
0545c8cf-b8fc-4817-bd7d-b47508fa3180
It's clearly intended as a reflection because it fades out the further down you go, as a reflection would do.
However, it fails in most other aspects. It's the wrong way up, and it's in perspective. A reflection would be in the same perspective as the original, given that it's perpendicular to the reflective surface. So, since we're looking perpendicularly at the original, we would do so at the reflection too.
If someone was worried about the V making an X when reflected, the opacity of the reflection could be lowered so that it wouldn't be as prominent.
Very poor - they've used white to red instead of white to transparent as well, so the 'not-a-reflection' blocks the background detail. Absolutely terrible.
Verification: cologo
What more can I add? I completely agree with David.
If this was intentional then there should be some reasoning behind it. The good designer will always think, "why did I just put that object there? What is its purpose?"
For a designer to purposely attempt to make something look like a reflection and then ignore any and all 'rules of reflection' would signify, to me, some level of idiocy.
rofl @ *optional. hahahaha
... it still tells me 'Ouch'.
Maybe it's an Alter-Realism sub category of perhaps 'parallel universe reflections': this is what the logo would look like in another universe!
No wait, I'm just being lost for words and that's a lame excuse for sheer awfulness. Plus, I don't buy brands of jeans that would cost me nearly three figures.
There is a big difference between a Photoshop 'disaster' and looking for accurate physics in a logo design.
This was definitely intentional, totally legitimate choice imho, nothing wrong here, move along.
Before you know it you are going to complain that logos are floating in mid-air and defy gravity.
it's pretty obvious that most of those who are saying this is a disaster don't own levi's, especially those of you complaining about their more than a century-old logo at the bottom.
Even if it was a reflection, there would be a double mistake, as reflections are not cast in perspective, so, unless its intentional i would say he intended to create a backlit shadow effect:
-Reflections are straight and inverted.
-If it was a shadow, the perspective would be ok, but it would still have to be inverted.
I feel that there's no mistake in that. It seems to be the design for the announcement, but, wtf, is a disaster if you say it!
Here's how the presentation went:
Designer presents window display.
Client: I love it. Except I can't read Levi's in the reflection. Can we reverse that? Saying "Levi's"
twice in this poster might get me promoted.
Exec: Can we, eh?
Designer: Fuck it, why not. It's friday, my balls are sticky and I hate everyone in this meeting. I detest levi's and I only wear g-star.
Client: I thought so.
Exec: Cool!
Choose your battles photoshoppers. But bear in mind that PSD will be there when you choose to throw one.
Maybe it's neither a reflection or a shadow. It's another version of the logo lying flat on the ground (hence the perspective). So then it doesn't need to be upside down. The fade out is actually a fade to red and not transparent. Makes perfect sense. C'mon, I'm trying so hard here :)
Terrible.
And the problem with the logo is that they seem to have filled it in with white losing all the lines and detail in the logo.
A shame really, as it's a great logo and horses shouldn't have to suffer such indignities.
mwahahahaha!
>Actually, looks like this was
>intentional.
Yes, this was my first impression too.
Speaking of the star shaped sphincter, anyone notice the curly-Q designs on the side look like fingers, making the whole image appear as someone spreading their ass open?
very nice disasters
I'll have to disagree, Brent. I think the swirly bits represent a gust of wind coming from the anus.
lol :D
glossy my ass!
I keep seeing one like this for Plenty paper towels, where the reflection features the old brand name - Bounty - but the reflected brand name reads right to left even though it's a horizontal reflection. There is supposed to be a difference though, so it's perhaps only a half disaster.
We don't want to have people walk around, reading 'S EVIL all the time, don't we?
Again i think most people are just jumping on the bandwagon that this must be a disaster. Learn to think for yourself. It's very likely they flipped it upside down at first and it was horrible to read as an advertisement(that's what this is). So they played with and came up with something us that looked cleaner and less brain numbing.
It's sad to see so many likely artists and people who would probably claim themselves to be smart in here fail to realize this.
Rob: Each horse only has 4 legs.
I don't think this is a Reflection. I think it's meant to be a Shadow Stretch or some kind of repeat.
So I agree with the previous comments of Intentional design.
I agree: Epic Fail on this!
A reflexion should be at least reflected...
This was clearly NOT supposed to be a reflection. This is a greta example of everything that is wrong with this site. Some idiot doesn't understnad what hte designed was going for, and considers it a mistake. Notice that hte squiggly lines are also not reflected.
Your stupidity is not the graphic designers fault. Blame your parents for the FAIL (to use a childish, no longer considered clever word that you chilren use) they had when they prepared you for the real world.
I don't know if this is a mistake. To me it looks like cleaver advertising. The first this is that you can read the word Levis twice. In addition the backwards reflection plays with the consumers mind. The reflection is cleaver because when you look at the reflection your brain registers that there is something off about the picture (even though it is slight), however you can’t quite figure it out (if you were to glance at it). As a result that image sticks in your mind as being odd, and vola your thinking about Levis all day. Lol I ronically now I’m thinking about Levis hahahah.
yep. it was very well done. nothing wrong with it
Commenting "I don't think it's a mistake" is very dull. What it is, is a dreary still from a stunningly unoriginal flash animation that is part of the global campaign that inadvertently looks like it should be a reflection when taken out of context, as it is here. What is more interesting to me is that whereas in the original Levi's logo the horse drivers are leading them with a carrot, http://bit.ly/dZDga , in this logo they are beating them with whips.
You are trying really hard to be contrarian to find flaws in this or the other posts. The site is "DISASTERS". These are not DISASTERS. This is one of many reasons i took this site off my bookmark list and no longer check it regularly because they just include anything to draw viewers/get attention.
I think that it's on purpose... it gives more emphasis to the LEVI'S
Totally intentional, looks at the drawings at the bottom and the tag line
What happened with this? Simple.
1) Sent to Legal for approval
2) Legal returns with "In reflection we cannot show the Levis logo upside down"
3) Art department "FACK" this will end up on Photoshop Disasters.
This is another reason why i no longer check out this site. It tried to hard to be dramatic and make disasters where they don't exist.
Post a Comment