If I can give my opinion, I don't dislike #50, but I think that that isolated Q won't be strong enough as an Icon.
I believe that #91 and #88 (short and long version of the same design) would look quite distinct and sophisticate, would give a great program icon and looks very good printed too. http://99designs.com/logo-design/contests/qgis-needs-logo-210397/entries/91 http://99designs.com/logo-design/contests/qgis-needs-logo-210397/entries/88 I believe that 2.0 deserves a brand new logo, so any of the old logo revamped styles (like #166, #49, #42) don't seam to be a good option. Alexandre Neto On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Régis Haubourg < regis.haubo...@eau-adour-garonne.fr> wrote: > John C. Tull-2 wrote > > I like the > > > http://99designs.com/logo-design/contests/qgis-needs-logo-210397/entries/50 > > entry, but I would > > +1 for #50. I like also #57, the same but with a background. Both can be > used in different contexts. > régis > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Re-Qgis-psc-Logo-tp5046799p5047346.html > Sent from the Quantum GIS - Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > _______________________________________________ > Qgis-developer mailing list > Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >
_______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer