How can you tell the difference between a good designer and an amateur?

[jessei]

Please, anyone! Give me a hint in how to tell appart those fake designers from the real ones... What are the attributes that make the difference? Are there any common mistakes made by designers who are not supposed to feed on our customers? I would appreciate a helping word here!

[resurepus]

the most common mistake amature designers make is overuse of photoshop filters. They take those "cool" effects for design

[KHDZN]

Originally Posted by resurepus

the most common mistake amature designers make is overuse of photoshop filters. They take those "cool" effects for design

I agree ‚ just because you can doesn't mean you should.

[jessei]

Thank you! You are perfectly right! Another common mistake, is using small rezolution pictures, stretched over the limit so that all the pixels are showing! Now that's obscene!

[KHDZN]

Also using too many type faces in one design — my biggest pet peeve!

[VonGizzle]

<blink>

[jessei]

Originally Posted by KHDZN

Also using too many type faces in one design — my biggest pet peeve!

Very true! Thx!

[jecrt]

I think the real difference between a good designer and an amateur is 1) good conceptual thinking and 2) the sensible execution of those good concepts.

An amateur can make stuff that looks cool, but it isn't necessarily a solution. It doesn't solve the design problem. I've seen a lot of professional designers make things that look amateur-ish because they either lack a good concept or the ability to execute a good concept.

[jessei]

Very wise thought! I know what you mean, jecrt!

[Stacia90]

"less is more"

Often I see new designers that keep adding and adding to the point of where it looks to busy and overdone. Good designers know when to stop. Sometimes simplicity is the best way to go.

[designumber18]

I agree with the post about "too many typefaces"... but a sure sign of an amateur is using very standard fonts (i.e. Times Roman, Arial/Helvetica, or pretty much any "standard" Windows font, like "Curlz" or "Comic Sans") in a design.

There are times when these fonts are handy, but there are SO many fonts that are similar to these, with minor aesthetic improvements, that there's really no reason to use them. They look trite, cliche, and amateurish.

Another sure sign, although not as easy to spot by a "novice" client is the appearance of bad kerning (spacing between pairs of letters). Many fonts found on the web don't have any inherent kerning "rules", so it's put upon the designer to create pleasing letterspacing, especially important in a logo.

Here's a link I quickly googled, to an article about kerning:

iLT Investigates: Type Torture (Kerning) | i love typography, the typography and fonts blog

[luckboy]

The good designer is who do his work truly and with confidence. But you can't trust anybody without your knowledge about him/her.

[ArtbyAudree]

Originally Posted by designumber18

Another sure sign, although not as easy to spot by a "novice" client is the appearance of bad kerning (spacing between pairs of letters). Many fonts found on the web don't have any inherent kerning "rules", so it's put upon the designer to create pleasing letterspacing, especially important in a logo.

18, I TOTALLY agree about the kearning. Another common mistake is stretching or sqishing the lettering so it looks distorted.

I tend to notice an over-use of gradients. Too much of a good thing is not a good thing. It also doen't translate well to print. A good logo design should work just as well in black and white as it does in color. It's a good habit to design in black and white first... then make a color version.

Audree

[.:FMD]

I would say typography in general things such as types of fonts used, using different weights properly, knowing when to hang a punctuation, using proper punctuations such as the actual quote marks instead of tick marks, the kerning, the leading, the baseline adjustments (that's a big one).

Usually parenthesis, dashes, and bullets do not always line up where they should be when you type something out (they droop a little below the baseline or are just underneath the x height making the design look sloppy).

Another one that comes to mind is setting type directly on the baseline and not understanding that characters that have a curves such as C's and O's sit a little bit under the baseline. Haven't you seen those horrible light up signs for stores where they lined the bottom of the O to the rest of the letters.

I think Rick Valicenti has some great photos of the neon signs or light up signs with good and bad typography in his book "Emotion as Promotion" A book of thirst his company in Illinois.

[Deathdart]

Here's some articles that might help you:
13 Signs You're A Bad Graphic Designer
Fake Logo Designs <- around the end of this article

It's aimed at designers, but you can use these signs to judge whether you're dealing with a proper designer or a kid with photoshop looking to make a few quick bucks. It's pretty much what everyone has said till now and some more.

[.:FMD]

Originally Posted by Deathdart

Here's some articles that might help you:
13 Signs You're A Bad Graphic Designer
Fake Logo Designs <- around the end of this article

Great post! Nice find deathdart.

[Chung Dha]

Pretty much photoshop, non pms color use, and they don't know anything about printing. So if you ask then to produce partial UV spot and don't know what you are talking about then search someone else.

[ronin]

great post. thanks

[nordy]

I look for good execution and typography.

[oxynite]

the choose of typography says all for me