Well my last post from a while back called "HELP!!! its about the triangle-thingy" ( http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=14428.msg260694#msg260694 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=14428.msg260694#msg260694) )
I said "My UC wants to put the triangle-thingy on our new sqdrn patch. I ask you wat should I do or say? H e wants feedback and reasons why something should or shouldn't be on it." well he didn't really care and did it anyways here is what it looks like.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/564249_436707509676827_100000127458229_1865985_363652890_n.jpg)
We can't see the image, because it's only on your computer. It needs to be hosted somewhere on the web in order for anyone else to see it.
Quote from: SarDragon on April 18, 2012, 09:37:36 AM
We can't see the image, because it's only on your computer. It needs to be hosted somewhere on the web in order for anyone else to see it.
ican't see it i figered its was because on my side. But I work on it.
Thanks
FIXED IT. THANK GOSH FOR FACEBOOK :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: 8) ;D
I don't care for it:
1. Doesn't conform to USAF squadron patch guidelines for shape. Shields and scrolls are generally reserved for major commands.
2. Colors are too dark.
3. To me the eagle looks reminiscent of a German Weimar eagle (also used by the Nazi party)
4. The triangle thingy. Better if the triangle was larger and the prop was completely inside it.
BTW, this design and the idea of a rap song for the squadron scream immaturity to me.
Just a couple of questions .................. Do you know if this patch was approved by Col Lehman, the Washington CC ? And isn't Paine Field actually 'Paine Field Composite Squadron'?
although we're not bound by AF heraldry standards, I seem to recall seeing that they don't allow to put existing symbols inside a patch design. For example, they wouldnj't let you put that AF symbol inside an AF squadron patch. I could be wrong as I don't have my reference material with me.
Quote from: Dad2-4 on April 18, 2012, 10:44:20 AM
I don't care for it:
1. Doesn't conform to USAF squadron patch guidelines for shape. Shields and scrolls are generally reserved for major commands.
BTW, this design and the idea of a rap song for the squadron scream immaturity to me.
My old Squadrong had a shield with scroll that was approved with no trouble.
It's also one of the few Squadron Patches that doesn't have the old three triangels with inner props. They were given special permission to use another logo in it's place because of the city it's in. The commander went for something a little iconic for those of us that are members of the Nation up here.
Quote from: capmaj on April 18, 2012, 11:30:36 AMAnd isn't Paine Field actually 'Paine Field Composite Squadron'?
It is today, and might not be next year, which is why I rarely put the unit type in the insignia. it's irrelevant to the public, and not even really that important internally in regards to a unit patch, etc.
Quote from: Flint on April 18, 2012, 01:35:50 PM
My old Squadrong had a shield with scroll that was approved with no trouble.
How long ago? Awareness of, and adherence to, the guideline is relatively new in CAP, and a lot of wings still claim ignorance.
Anyone aware of the proper usage should not be submitting incorrect shapes, regardless of whether it might sneak through the Wing CC.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 18, 2012, 02:09:37 PM
Quote from: Flint on April 18, 2012, 01:35:50 PM
My old Squadrong had a shield with scroll that was approved with no trouble.
How long ago? Awareness of, and adherence to, the guideline is relatively new in CAP, and a lot of wings still claim ignorance.
Anyone aware of the proper usage should not be submitting incorrect shapes, regardless of whether it might sneak through the Wing CC.
They got it approved probably back in 1993 or so when the Squadron got started.
Quote from: Flint on April 18, 2012, 02:44:48 PMThey got it approved probably back in 1993 or so when the Squadron got started.
That makes sense, they most likely would not get it approved like that now.
My wing actually went as far as to publish a supplement that requires units to redesign non-compliant insignia before they are
allowed to order anything featuring it incurs a cost.
My first squadron had a shield squadron patch that was worn for as long as I can remember and I think it may still be worn today.
It's not that the colors are just too dark, they are actually incorrect, and I would posit that as presented
lean more towards the negative aspects of the color vs. the positive.
The guidlines have a number of comments in regards to color:
http://www.afhra.af.mil/documents/hgc3/index.asp (http://www.afhra.af.mil/documents/hgc3/index.asp)
- Using Colors in Emblems
The colors of an emblem often have significance but that is always secondary to the symbolism of the emblem. The colors of the Air Force, ultramarine blue and Air Force yellow, should appear in the design; the blue represents "the sky", the primary theater of Air Force operations, while Air Force yellow represents "the sun" and the excellence required of Air Force personnel. A note of caution, ultramarine blue, while it represents the sky, is not a light blue; an ultramarine blue shield or disc is fairly dark and requires charges of good contrast. A rule of thumb when assigning color to design elements is to use colors that contrast: dark on light, light on dark. Heraldry divides colors into metals -- gold (yellows) and silver (white, silver gray) -- and colors (reds, blues, greens). The cardinal rule of heraldry is no metal on metal and no color on color. The positive and negative association of twelve colors appears below for field personnel who are considering the design of organizational emblems.
RED (heraldic GULES) Positive: blood of life, boldness, Christ, courage, hardiness, liberty, magnanimity, passion, patriotism, planet Mars, sentiment, strength, valor, warmth (of fire), and zeal. Negative: anarchy, blood (spilled), danger, death throes, Satan, fire (burning), passions, revolution, war, and wounds.
ORANGE (heraldic Tenne) Positive: ambition, benevolence, earthly wisdom, endurance, fire, flames, hospitality, marriage, pride, and strength. Negative: malevolence and Satan.
GOLD (heraldic OR) [interchangeable with YELLOW] Positive: honor, majesty (royalty), mystic aspects of the sun, riches, and wisdom. Negative: idolatry.
YELLOW (also heraldic OR) Positive: constancy, dissemination, divinity, elevation of mind, excellence, highest values, honor, illumination, intellect, intuition, justice, light, loyalty, magnanimity, riches, ripened grain, sun, supreme wisdom and wisdom. Negative: cowardice and treachery.
BROWN . Positive: the earth and lesser nobility. Negative: Barrenness and poverty.
GREEN (heraldic VERT). Positive: adaptability, auspiciousness, gladness, fertility of fields, freshness, hope, immortality, joy, love, life, nature, prosperity, sympathy, vegetation, planet Venus, wisdom, and youth. Negative: disgrace, envy, jealousy, lividness, madness, opposition, and sinisterness.
BLUE (heraldic AZURE). Positive: (light blue) calm seas, charity, cold, constancy, daylight, devotion, innocence, planet Jupiter, justice, loyalty, piety, sincerity, sky, thinking, and truth. Negative (dark blue): doubt, discomfort, night, and stormy seas.
PURPLE (heraldic PURPURE). Positive: empire, humility, jurisdiction, love of truth, loyalty, memories, planet Mercury, nostalgia, patience, power, rank, royalty, sacrifice, and spirituality. Negative: martyrdom, mourning, penitence, regret, resignation, and sublimation.
BLACK (heraldic SABLE). Positive: constancy, dignity, determination, divine doctrine, fertilized land, humility, mighty, night, prudence, regality, planet Saturn, sophistication, sorrow, and starkness. Negative: death, despair, evilness, grief, morbidity, nothingness, penitence, sickness, sin, and void.
GRAY (heraldic ARGENT). Positive: discretion, humility, maturity, penitence, renunciation, and retrospection. Negative: barrenness, depression, egoism, grief, indifference, inertia, neutralization, old age, and winter.
SILVER (heraldic ARGENT). Positive: charity, chastity, clear conscience, faith, moon, innocence, purity, and test of truth. Negative: blank, cold, ghostly, spectral, and void.
WHITE (also heraldic ARGENT). Positive: daylight, innocence, perfection, purity, truth, and wisdom. Negative: same as for silver above.
Note: GRAY, SILVER, and White are all ARGENT and interchangeable.
Quote from: capmaj on April 18, 2012, 11:30:36 AM
Just a couple of questions .................. Do you know if this patch was approved by Col Lehman, the Washington CC ? And isn't Paine Field actually 'Paine Field Composite Squadron'?
Yes it was approved by wing. and I don't why it doesn't say Composite Squadron, But I'm guessing it was because of spacing.
Quote from: Dad2-4 on April 18, 2012, 10:44:20 AM
I don't care for it:
1. Doesn't conform to USAF squadron patch guidelines for shape. Shields and scrolls are generally reserved for major commands.
2. Colors are too dark.
3. To me the eagle looks reminiscent of a German Weimar eagle (also used by the Nazi party)
4. The triangle thingy. Better if the triangle was larger and the prop was completely inside it.
Concour!
Is there any actual heraldry associated with the design? It doesn't appear so.
It would appear that your unit already has an insignia.
(http://showcase.teamcap.org/albums/userpics/10001/paine4.jpg)
And I would say the existing one is infinity preferable to the one you say is the "new" one.
Better detail, better colors, more appropriate design. Throw that in the proper shape
on an ultramarine field and you'd really have a nice insignia.
(http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/2759/painefield.gif)
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2012, 12:39:27 AM
It would appear that your unit already has an insignia.
(http://showcase.teamcap.org/albums/userpics/10001/paine4.jpg)
And I would say the existing one is infinity preferable to the one you say is the "new" one.
Better detail, better colors, more appropriate design. Throw that in the proper shape
on an ultramarine field and you'd really have a nice insignia.
(http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/2759/painefield.gif)
well i'v never seen that one before. The old patch was just the eagle. And in the middle said Paine Field EAGLES 049. Try sewing that on. the wings were h311
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2012, 12:39:27 AM
It would appear that your unit already has an insignia.
(http://showcase.teamcap.org/albums/userpics/10001/paine4.jpg)
And I would say the existing one is infinity preferable to the one you say is the "new" one.
Better detail, better colors, more appropriate design. Throw that in the proper shape
on an ultramarine field and you'd really have a nice insignia.
(http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/2759/painefield.gif)
Wait. . . did you use Photoshop to make that?
Don't know the software, but Eclipse has designed patches in the past, and yes, I'm assuming he's using what you currently have, and made a "proper" unit patch in something like photoshop.
Yes, just an example - the eagle is the unit insignia from your unit's web page, and very sharp IMHO.
It also look less 70's then the "new" one.
The below is just one quick example of a proper disc with rockers.
A proper update would respect the lineage of the old patch while making it compliant.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2012, 01:20:27 AM
Yes, just an example - the eagle is the unit insignia from your unit's web page, and very sharp IMHO.
It also look less 70's then the "new" one.
The below is just one quick example of a proper disc with rockers.
A proper update would respect the lineage of the old patch while making it compliant.
I agree
Use of the airplane, at least as it appears here, is going to be difficult for a number of reasons, not the least of which include:
1. It'll be impossible to embroider that much detail.
2. Under the Air Force guidelines, it's unacceptable to use a literal airplane shape. Something abstract is fine. Besides, when they change the planes' color scheme again, your emblem is dead.
3. Because the bottom half of the plane is blue, you can't put it on a blue background without outlining the whole thing ("color on color," which heralds call "blazoning").
And the shield over the eagle presents problems:
1. The shield isn't a service-appropriate shape.
2. Use of the propeller-triangle insigne is redundant to every other device you'll wear on your uniform, and it's unnecessary. Besides, if we use the AF heraldry guidelines as a guide, as we really should, it's verboten for reasons enunciated by others above (the same argument — that it's a heraldic device already used by higher command — could be used to nix the bird, too).
Also, since "Semper Vigilans" is the motto of the whole organization, it's unnecesary to recapitulate it here. If your unit has its own slogan/motto, that's acceptable to use, but not the overall CAP motto. And I'd be hesitant to use a charter number, in the event that would change.
I'd strongly suggest thinking more about your unit and your location when you draw up a new emblem. What makes your unit different from every other is where you are, not what you do (since all squadrons do the same things). What's special about where you are? And try to think in abstract terms about that, unless it's something that will never change (like mountains, a monument that's relevant, et al).
Just as an FYI - that was a 10-minute 1/2-butted example I threw together.
As to the detail, not only can embroidery machines render that level, it's pretty common. That aircraft wouldn't even be a challenge,
though I wouldn't use it as-is without styling it. I don't actually even like it the way its located.
Really? The one-thread-wide blue stripes on the wings? Just because the technology might exist doesn't mean it's worth doing. After all, how many people twist type in some Microsoft app thinking it's "good design"?
Good design = simple. The more intricate, the more that gets lost in the details. But at that, if you want something for the long term, you don't want to use an exact airplane, anyway. How many times has CAP changed livery?
One thing that may also be worth a look, and it's a finer point, but which way is the eagle looking and which way is the plane flying? Right to left, versus left to right, can also have a heraldic significance. Also, be careful the plane's not flying downward, which would have a negative impact (no pun intended).
Is the CAP plane getting ready to strafe the eagle?
Of interest, about simplicity: http://www.mcwade.com/DesignTalk/2011/10/how-simple-is-too-simple/ (http://www.mcwade.com/DesignTalk/2011/10/how-simple-is-too-simple/)
That really does look like a Nazi eagle, or the current DFR eagle for that matter.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on April 21, 2012, 04:33:17 PM
Really? The one-thread-wide blue stripes on the wings? Just because the technology might exist doesn't mean it's worth doing. After all, how many people twist type in some Microsoft app thinking it's "good design"?
So again, that wouldn't be the art I'd use, the aircraft would have to be stylized, etc., but you could do it.
Also, a patch isn't the only place a unit or activity insignia is used, so IMHO, you design the logo, and then deal with various medium. Letterhead, signage,
coins, etc., all need high detail with good color contrast. One of the reasons we have so many substandard, unimaginative insignia in CAP is because
people design to the tools instead of vice-versa.
No, you design an emblem that's readable at any size.
AT&T went through that sort of many-sizes-for-many-needs debacle when the "Death Star" logo (some called it "American Ball" at the time, since AT&T trotted out a short-lived new name, "American Bell") was introduced in 1984 to replace the beautifully simple Saul Bass 1969 Bell System logo system. If you used the 1984 logo at 1/4" in diameter, you used a version of the logo with X number of bars; if it got bigger, the number of bars increased. After several years of confusion, they wised up and changed it to an eight-bar version that could run in either AT&T blue, black or (in reverse) white. Then with the SBC takeover came a 3D logo that could be reproduced at any size, though a black-and-white version definitely had to be made available (that's no surprise; it's common). One design covered every size.
When you design an emblem, consideration should be made for one-color printing. And to repeat what you said, Eclipse, if the color version would reproduce poorly in black-and-white, you have a color values issue that should be considered again anyway.
In Civil Air Patrol, as in Air Force heraldry, the emblem is designed once. Flexibility should be taken into consideration, though frankly, there are very few times when a squadron emblem manifests itself in any other way than a patch. It might be on a letterhead (smaller size, of course), but it's rarely going to become a two-foot-wide vinyl decal. If it does, though, you'd better be sure you drew it the first time in Illustrator and not in Photoshop!
And here in Civil Air Patrol, just as in most places in real life, don't count on anyone else knowing which variant is used at which size. In CAP, you're lucky if they don't use it upside-down. (There's my cheap shot of the night.)
PART TWO
Eclipse, you say people design to the tools. That may be a problem. But what I see as an evolving problem is that it's too easy to rely on existing symbology rather than thinking critically about the unit an emblem reflects. We know why CAP-USAF uses existing symbols -- the heraldry is designed to show that CAP-USAF bridges a gap and maintains a bond between CAP and Ma Blue. However...
Nevada Wing's new emblem, while an improvement from the old "I got nuthin'" school of design, is modeled after the CAP-USAF emblem using existing designs. Florida's last one was borrowed, too. Mississippi's and Georgia's aren't much different. All of them unoriginal to both the organizations they represent and to themselves. They borrow too much from existing emblems and don't say anything much about their wings. Georgia's just borrows the (new) state flag (until they change it again). Florida's last one used the seal, which wasn't even the original proposal (it was supposed to be the WWII emblem with a "Florida" arc). Mississippi's takes part of the CAP seal, the state logo from license plates, a map silhouette and mashes them all together in Clip Art Hell. Never mind the eagle's impaled with the prop-and-triangle. Nevada? Looks like no one could come to an agreement, so they just settled on a couple of cliches and called it a day. Oh, and Pennsylvania has an alternate emblem, a shield that a third-grader apparently designed with MacPaint (couldn't they think of the Liberty Bell at least? Flag, airplane shining black light, huh?).
However, Illinois Wing got it right. Not only did they adapt to the Air Force modified-boiler shield, they carted their longtime heraldry over. I'd like to see others do that, instead of throw their heritage out the window, and definitely instead of borrowing heavily from someone else. West Virginia's emblem would work well in the shield, as would Ohio's, Pennsylvania's, New Mexico's and most of the others.
Florida could've done it with the gator, which is missed in the rank and file, but the new emblem (full disclosure: I didn't design it, but worked with the designer to make a vector image of it using IOH colors) reflects some thought as to the wing, its missions and its raison d'etre. While I might've done it differently, it at least reflects some additional contemplation.
In a nutshell, if you have to rely on someone else's emblem to make yours work, generally, you're doing it wrong. You're using a crutch. THINK! What makes your unit different from everyone else? We all do the same things, for the most part. We don't have units that perform certain designated functions, like Ma Blue. So you have to look at your own locale, its aviation heritage and its Civil Air Patrol history. Think hard, force yourself to think of multiple ideas, find people you can trust for feedback. Find artists, others interested in heraldry (oh, those SCA reenactors are all geeked up on this stuff -- know any?), typographers, historians whose brains you can pick.
One more thing... the only other niggling problem with the new ones is that no one has been able to shape the type right in the scroll, making it all look off-balance. That's easily solved, if you're willing to take a little more time and work with the type. Most people (and many self-styled designers) can't do it; either they don't have the patience or the typographic background for it.
Holy cow, it's 3:45 a.m. and I realized I'm on a soapbox. I have some credibility: I've designed/redrawn emblems in this organization, logo packages for companies, even a few newspaper nameplates. I'm not OCD about it, but it's jarring to see where someone missed an opportunity.
If I've offended anyone, I apologize; this will come across reading like a mini-lecture, I'll bet, but for those who haven't yet taken the plunge or are considering it, there's some nuggets here for would-be designers.
Bravo!
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: