Authored by: DanZ on Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 06:50 PM

nuke the crappy poop green/gray background. how about white/tan or something neutral maybe?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 06:58 PM

Are you questioning the sacrosanct Candleblog Green??? We like this color so much we painted our living room with it:

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DanZ on Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 07:03 PM

oh, uh, um ... no, actually I like the color, but my girlfriend Rachael doesn't, and she logged in as me and typed that. And because she has nice hooters, I don't ever argue, but this one time I had to say "okay, you've gone too far!". okay, she apologized. Heck I LOVE that poopy green/gray thing you've got going on there. yeah.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: JIMO on Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 07:05 PM

The living room looks like a warm green, whereas the Web site background is a cool (as in temp, not hipness) green. Could be wrong.

---
There's always gotta be a reason for something.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 07:08 PM

The difference between the appearance of the living room in the photo and the blog is mostly poor digital reproduction and the presence of incandescent lights giving off a lot of amber glow. The color in the living room is closer to Candleblog Green it appears here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DanZ on Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 07:09 PM

Have you considered less biological tones like these:

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 07:12 PM

This is a little truer:

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DanZ on Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 07:13 PM

Also, remember that you're using a gamma of 1.0 in your living room image, but the reason that a viewing gamma of 1.125 is used instead of 1.0 is to compensate for the viewing environment conditions, including ambient illumination and flare. Historically, viewing gammas of 1.5 have been used for viewing projected slides in a dark room and viewing gammas of 1.25 have been used for viewing monitors in a very dim room. This very dim room value of 1.25 has been used extensively in television systems and assumes a ambient luminance level of approximately 15 lux. Make the simple correction and you'll finder a greater correspondence.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DanZ on Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 07:14 PM

Woah, we cross posted. You posted the new picture using a gamma of 1.25 just when I posted my response above.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 07:17 PM

For my living room??? No way! Actually that first one isn't bad, but I don't like the others at all. And anyway, the green is not on the chopping block. Candleblog has a long history with the color green and somehow in the back of my head it refers to Vermont--the Green Mountain State and all of that. We're just looking at some new logo ideas for 2006, that's all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DanZ on Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 08:00 PM

Okay, here are some options:

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Thursday, December 29 2005 @ 09:24 PM

who's the little dude next to the end table?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: e_to_the_m on Friday, December 30 2005 @ 03:38 AM

"T-t-t-too much time on my hands."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Friday, December 30 2005 @ 04:30 AM

Can you spot Phinneaus in the photograph?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DanZ on Friday, December 30 2005 @ 05:14 AM

duh, it's a little andy warhol statue.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: MarkS on Friday, December 30 2005 @ 09:56 AM

He's in the far corner between the chair and the window. I can see his tail and catbutt.

You should have used an 82A filter over the lens. I guess with PS you can pick your white point, gray point and black point, which can help with contrast and color balance.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: MarkS on Friday, December 30 2005 @ 09:57 AM

Uh, I think you made the logo too big, it's cut off on three sides.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: JIMO on Friday, December 30 2005 @ 12:20 PM

I thought that was intentional...

---
There's always gotta be a reason for something.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: MarkS on Friday, December 30 2005 @ 07:55 PM

It is. I'm just being a dork.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: MarkS on Friday, December 30 2005 @ 07:56 PM

Catbutt.

Say THAT in a Vermont accent!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Spine on Friday, December 30 2005 @ 08:30 PM

"New logos? What new logos?" thought I. Then I emptied my cache and refreshed the page. Aha.

---
www.masaladose.com

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DanZ on Saturday, December 31 2005 @ 04:40 PM

When selecting wall areas in PS, Phinneus' i noticed what appeared to be a weird huge lever on the side of the recliner. i figured you guys got it from the estate sale of somebody who was disabled and needed a special chair w/ a huge lever.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: evening on Saturday, December 31 2005 @ 08:29 PM

thanks for the tip, Spine. d'oh! [I thought it was something that was
getting switched in and out and I just kept missing it...I'm a bright one]

That said, it has been a day or so and I don't think I like this big ass
logo. it is very distracting out of the corner of my eye and makes me
want to keep looking at it as opposed to the substance of the site.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 04:45 PM

To anyone who's still following this thread: hit refresh again. Another logo test is up as of 4:30pm Monday the 2nd.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: e_to_the_m on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 08:44 PM

I like this one but I will need a comparison page at the end of all of this...memory's not what it used to be.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: evening on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 10:02 PM

I like it but it doesn't fit in with the rest of the site. so if you change the
rest of the site design, I think it would work. but if you leave everything
else the same, I don't think its quite right. (it is very sleek/modern/
thin, yet the site isn't exactly)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Monday, January 02 2006 @ 11:09 PM

(it is very sleek/modern/ thin, yet the site isn't exactly)

Are you calling Candleblog fat?! :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: evening on Tuesday, January 03 2006 @ 08:31 AM

uh..um..no(?)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DanZ on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 08:30 AM

The color of the background of the candleblog logo image doesn't match the background of the page.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 05:13 PM

What? Yes it does. It's 929F7A. I just opened the whole page up in Photoshop and the color picker shows the same color. Or is the joke making me open up the page in Photoshop? Ha ha, Zucker.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: evening on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 08:54 PM

I think it is an optical illusion that makes the color around the shading
look slightly off (I noticed it a little at one point - may depend on the
way my screen is angled).

[off-topic] And can anyone else not think/say illusion properly after
Arrested Development? (and wasn't that an awesome episode Sun???) [/
off-topic]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: billsimmon on Wednesday, January 04 2006 @ 08:57 PM

Why "illusion?" Am I forgetting something really funny? I enjoyed all of the jabs at Fox.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: evening on Thursday, January 05 2006 @ 08:32 AM

The way Gob says illusion every time. He emphasizes the U and drags
out the end (Michael keeps calling it trick, magic, etc and Gob always
says "Illusion, Michael"). Wish I could find a sound clip.

[ Reply to This | # ]