| Author |
Message |
shearacamacho

Joined: 13 Apr 2008
Posts: 45
Location: Portugal (Madeira Island)
|
|
crashoran
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 196
Location: Austin, Tx
|
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 2:50 pm
| |
I honestly don't see anything wrong with the new logo. |
|
nmonckton

Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 848
Location: http://www.npmimages.com
|
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 2:56 pm
| |
I agree - its fine the way it is. All major companies change their logo fom time to time - who wants to be stuck with an image from a different century? |
|
crashoran
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 196
Location: Austin, Tx
|
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 3:30 pm
| |
I've got way bigger problems than worrying about Shutterstock's logo change :) |
|
jmci

Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 1380
Location: Northern Ireland
|
Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 11:12 pm
| |
I wasn't keen on it when it first appeared, but I've got used to it now. |
|
esh

Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 3
Location: Denmark
|
Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:39 am
| |
I agree with shearacamacho. While it's evident what the old logo stands for, the new one could mean anything. I think it's a trend. The mind works in mysterios ways, and maybe it's more fun, if we all interpret logos without any hints. I think the new one looks very much like a bad lens or a feather from Robin's hat or simply a "shuttershock" ;O) |
|
| |
|