Pixelogos.net - New website for logos, web buttons and banners

**PixelEstate.com** · 01-12-2008 09:00 PM

I just wanted to let you guys know that I just started a new website called Pixelogos.net, we basically create small logos, buttons, and web badges for a small fee based on a logo. Please let me know if you have any suggestions about the website, service prices, etc.

Thanks everyone!

**Nick S** · 01-12-2008 10:01 PM

Do you use ms paint? or photoshop?

I mean I see absolutely no real design skill I am sorry to say. The buttons look uninspired and honestly they look like buttons you would see on websites in 1995. Tell me I am missing something here?

**PixelEstate.com** · 01-12-2008 11:05 PM

Some quick examples could be:

Digg's (Digg / All News, Videos, & Images) main logo and many buttons and badges they have.
Ebay's (eBay - New & used electronics, cars, apparel, collectibles, sporting goods & more at low prices) logo.
Adobe's small logo (Adobe) the red A icon.

I think these sites are quite big. Also, most small reader RSS feed buttons use these type of image editing. RSS feeds and blogs (browse around and see little buttons) are not from 1995, and many use these types of graphics.

It's just a matter of point of view and opinions I guess

Oh, and if you look at the small buttons just below these post (the digg icon, del.icio.us icon, etc.), three out of seven (Digg, del.icio.us and Spurl) are made these way

**Nick S** · 01-13-2008 12:04 AM

I am pretty sure Adobe used Adobe Photoshop to create its logo in about 10 seconds. They did not go pixel by pixel....

Look you asked for opinion so I am going to give it. Your logos look cheap, unprofessional and boring. The eBay and Digg ones look good. They are probably all created via photoshop with the 'text' feature. I could recreate the eBay and Digg logos in 2 min (if I had already found the correct texts).

Here is an example of what logos should look like:

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/9945/doghousedz9.gif

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/4809/tigerpf3.gif

**JRayers** · 01-13-2008 01:03 AM

With all due respect Nick S I think you misunderstand. Pixel art is an entirely different ballgame to standard text and shape creation in Photoshop.

**Nick S** · 01-13-2008 01:19 AM

@ JRayers: Thanks for the clarification, you are right I did misunderstand.

@ PixelEstate: My mistake man, I though you were a complete noob trying to pull off some photoshop logo designs in paint. I have never head of pixel art but I just Googled it.

**PixelEstate.com** · 01-13-2008 10:26 AM

Thanks JRayers.

Nick: Don't worry, the good part is that you learned about it

Pixel art is completely different from Photoshop digital art and it's still widely used in many applications (such as these) and many mobile games too.

**GriZzly** · 01-13-2008 03:24 PM

To be fair your own website damns you, and I quote: "Try using complex tools (Photoshop, vector graphics) to resize a small image and you'll see that the results are not good"

There are two types of image file Scalar and Vector. Scalar images use mapped pixels i.e. each pixel has a fixed mapped location just like battleships. Therefore when you resize a scalar image quality will be altered.

However Vector images use pixel relativity, i.e. each pixel is plotted in RELATION to its neighbouring pixels, so when a vector image is resized, its relationships remain the same with neighbouring pictures... result: image quality does not suffer.

So to make a statement that software that uses the vector system will cause poor quality is a bit of a lie now isn't it?

**ncik** · 01-13-2008 06:32 PM

Grizzly's got you there...and maybe you shouldn't put Photoshop and vector graphics grouped together like that, as Photoshop used scalar images.

The little logos look good, but maybe you need a little something extra to get that much more attention.

On another note though, I always need loads of icons and small graphics, so if you'd be interested in providing them please get in touch.

**toml7379** · 01-13-2008 06:48 PM

To be honest i didnt really like your site. Probably because im a bit of a perfectionist but it just didn't look that professional. Also making mistakes like RRS feeds instead of RSS feeds doesnt give you a great image. In my opinion a website reflects the standard of your work (to a certain degree) escpecially if you're working with graphics. For this reason i would probably not buy. Sorry to sound harsh - all it needs is a bit of attention