Does anyone know where I can obtain a high-res (e.g., TIFF) version of the CAP command patch (the one that looks like a MAJCOM patch)? I'd prefer the first one, not the U.S. Civil Air Patrol one.
The CAP graphics link off of e-Services doesn't include the command patch, and the low-res version I have is too wimpy for my needs.
Thanks in advance.
Here's one: http://www.af.mil/shared/media/ggallery/hires/afg-050128-011.jpg
Perfecto! Thanks.
Begs an interesting question.
This is not the version favored by CAPFLT001. So which do we use?
Here is another handy hi-res version of the af.mil site.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 05, 2007, 09:23:36 PM
Begs an interesting question.
This is not the version favored by CAPFLT001. So which do we use?
The Approved Logo.
At least that's what any good PAO should be advising.
Which you can get here. http://www.mncap.org/pa/new_majcomm.cfm
Capt Al Pabon
Deputy Director, Public Affairs, NCR
Quote from: Eclipse on July 05, 2007, 09:23:36 PMThis is not the version favored by CAPFLT001. So which do we use?
Technically, that should be HEADCAP1, since CAPFLT would refer to an aircraft. HEADCAP is the correct callsign for National staff.
Quote from: MNWG/PA on July 06, 2007, 01:10:44 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 05, 2007, 09:23:36 PM
Begs an interesting question.
This is not the version favored by CAPFLT001. So which do we use?
The Approved Logo.
At least that's what any good PAO should be advising.
Which you can get here. http://www.mncap.org/pa/new_majcomm.cfm
Capt Al Pabon
Deputy Director, Public Affairs, NCR
Just curious who made those. The font and positioning is
off from the original version
I asked because I made some CAP business cards for myself, and now my squadron commander wants me to design some for him. He wants to use the command patch (whereas I used the CAP seal).
I used the old patch in the version I drew up for him. In addition to my distaste for the whole U.S. Civil Air Patrol thing, the old patch looks better. The lettering on the new version looks crummy.
Here's the one I did. The "USAF Aux" version used a Arial Narrow - Bold Font, which is what I used to render this one.
Since there's an odd number of letters in "Civil Air Patrol" it seemed to make sense visually to justify the scroll letters so that the ends matched up even. With the middle coming to a point, there didn't seem any win-win situation.
I couldn't find a picture of a vehicle or a/c with the new decals, so I checked it against our ate up ID cards.
Although I know which one I prefer, I also have a more than good idea what my wing commander will want me to use. ;)
Borrow it if you see fit.
Here's another one, better quality than what NHQ produced, IMHO. I stuck to the US without periods to remain true to the original CAP patches worn in WWII.
I agree that NHQ should have spent more time on the logos, but it doesn't matter, we shouldn't be creating our own versions, >especially< when they are markedly different than what is "approved".'
Its one thing to add shadows, gradients, reflectivity, etc., but to actually change the fonts is just asking for trouble, because users will naturally take the one(s) that look better and the next you know we've got weird looking patches and insignia all over the place.
Quote from: tedda on July 06, 2007, 01:55:47 AM
Quote from: MNWG/PA on July 06, 2007, 01:10:44 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 05, 2007, 09:23:36 PM
Begs an interesting question.
This is not the version favored by CAPFLT001. So which do we use?
The Approved Logo.
At least that's what any good PAO should be advising.
Which you can get here. http://www.mncap.org/pa/new_majcomm.cfm
Capt Al Pabon
Deputy Director, Public Affairs, NCR
Just curious who made those. The font and positioning is off from the original version
HQ, CAP Public Affairs.
Quote from: justin_bailey on July 06, 2007, 02:29:22 AM
I asked because I made some CAP business cards for myself, and now my squadron commander wants me to design some for him. He wants to use the command patch (whereas I used the CAP seal).
I used the old patch in the version I drew up for him. In addition to my distaste for the whole U.S. Civil Air Patrol thing, the old patch looks better. The lettering on the new version looks crummy.
That's cool. My buisiness cards still have the old version.
Quote from: MNWG/PA on July 06, 2007, 02:21:37 PM
Quote from: tedda on July 06, 2007, 01:55:47 AM
Just curious who made those. The font and positioning is off from the original version
HQ, CAP Public Affairs.
It's too bad the jpg looks odd and all but one of the gifs have the jaggies, since this is the only place the new emblem has been offered to the membership.
Great intention. Execution... not so much.
Quote from: tedda on July 06, 2007, 03:57:49 PM
Quote from: MNWG/PA on July 06, 2007, 02:21:37 PM
Quote from: tedda on July 06, 2007, 01:55:47 AM
Just curious who made those. The font and positioning is off from the original version
HQ, CAP Public Affairs.
It's too bad the jpg looks odd and all but one of the gifs have the jaggies, since this is the only place the new emblem has been offered to the membership.
Great intention. Execution... not so much.
Add it to the list. If HQ made them, why aren't they posted on NHQ's site, or used by them?
Quote from: Eclipse on July 06, 2007, 01:56:27 PM
I agree that NHQ should have spent more time on the logos, but it doesn't matter, we shouldn't be creating our own versions, >especially< when they are markedly different than what is "approved".'
Its one thing to add shadows, gradients, reflectivity, etc., but to actually change the fonts is just asking for trouble, because users will naturally take the one(s) that look better and the next you know we've got weird looking patches and insignia all over the place.
Thanks for the input, Bobbo...I'll stop using my own versions when NHQ hires someone who knows how to use Illustrator properly.....hasn't happened yet. The NHQ-produced ones simply reflect poorly on the organization.
Quote from: Mustang on July 06, 2007, 07:05:57 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 06, 2007, 01:56:27 PM
I agree that NHQ should have spent more time on the logos, but it doesn't matter, we shouldn't be creating our own versions, >especially< when they are markedly different than what is "approved".'
Its one thing to add shadows, gradients, reflectivity, etc., but to actually change the fonts is just asking for trouble, because users will naturally take the one(s) that look better and the next you know we've got weird looking patches and insignia all over the place.
Thanks for the input, Bobbo...I'll stop using my own versions when NHQ hires someone who knows how to use Illustrator properly.....hasn't happened yet. The NHQ-produced ones simply reflect poorly on the organization.
I agree. Besides, its not different, just better quality
Quote from: LtCol White on July 06, 2007, 07:11:50 PM
Quote from: LtCol White on July 06, 2007, 07:11:50 PM
Thanks for the input, Bobbo...I'll stop using my own versions when NHQ hires someone who knows how to use Illustrator properly.....hasn't happened yet. The NHQ-produced ones simply reflect poorly on the organization.
I agree. Besides, its not different, just better quality
No, its different - its one thing to use Photoshop, etc., to trace over a jaggy graphic and clean it up so it looks nice, or to re-sample something into line art so you can print it bigger, its a whole different thing to change the fonts and re-stylize the banner lettering.
Considering the editing talents of the average 8-year old these days, the way NHQ does things with insignia is ridiculous (see the photo ids, for example), but that doesn't make it right to re design their work and put in in the public places.
I don't think that anyone is creating graphics solely for the purpose of being insubordinate here.
Nor do I believe that a member-made vector image will cause human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria, etc...
When I make CAP graphics, I do it for my unit (Wing) as well as anyone else in the organization who feels that it could make their image better. When CAP introduced the command patch, they didn't include a graphic for folks to use for a long time. So, within a day or so of hearing about it, I made one myself. That same graphic crawled across the Web and wound up on dozens of Websites as well as curious places such as the ILWG News Blog (http://ilcapnews.blogs.com/il_cap_news_blog/) and even a NHQ prototype for the ID card (http://capblog.typepad.com/capblog/images/newidrev2_1.jpg).
My points: Share and share alike and a little innovation is not a bad thing.
Up to this point, I've seen 3 "official" versions of the "Civil Air Patrol" version command emblem to even include a silver bordered version and another different typeface. Is this windmill really worth tilting at?
Quote from: Eclipse on July 06, 2007, 07:25:37 PM
ts a whole different thing to change the fonts and re-stylize the banner lettering.
The lettering is SUPPOSED to be stylized as in my rendition. NHQ's is
wrong, due to the artist's lack of skill with his/her tools. As for the font, that artwork is my best effort at emulating the typefaces used in USAF A-2-sized MAJCOM patches.