How To Design A Flor Tile

R.BIRD has occupied 4 uniquely designed offices in its 24-year history and, in every case, we’ve satisfied a fetish for creating something unique out of ordinary floor tiles in our kitchenettes. See our current floor design above.

We often use a simple technique we mastered in the practically prehistoric days of computer graphics when special effects were born of imaginative thinking and not from menu items. The technique is commonly known as “pixelization.” Here’s a simple step-by-step using Photoshop and a favorite photograph.

1. Open your subject image in Photoshop and change Mode to Indexed Color. This mode disables Photoshop’s built-in anti-aliasing - the smoothing of image edges. We don’t want that. Tiles are not soft around the edge, right?

2. Oops. Forgot to mention this one. While changing Mode to Indexed Color, limit the number colors to match the palette you have available in tile. If your carpet or tile collection only comes in 16 different colors, limit the Indexed colors to 16 as well.

3. Now, scale your Image Size by a uniform percentage. Try 10 percent for a start, both horizontally and vertically.

4. Last step: scale the image by an inverse proportion to the one you just used in the previous step. In this case, 1000 percent x 1000 percent.

Voila!

If you changed mode correctly in step 2, you can now open up the image Color Table and modify the resulting palette to match as you please to what you have to work with in carpet, vinyl tile or ceramics. Using Select Color Range will also do the trick.

For a more abstract result, start with a reduction to 5 percent or less. (Find someone good at math for the inverse proportion.) For a mosaic look, start with a reduction of about 20% and an inverse of 500%.

(No, there’s not a missing letter “o” in this post’s title. We refer to Interface Inc.’s Flor system for carpet tiles.)

How about a quilt?!

In the first article of this series I described how to optimize strokes in Adobe Illustrator. This time we will focus on how to create smooth strokes using Photoshop’s layer styles.

Bartelme Design is dead - well obviously not. Even though it might have seemed like that over the last couple of days. My provider upgraded their hardware and changed their IP addresses - so all nameservers had to be updated.

A buyer licensed the use of an illustration for a specified period of time to promote services on its website and in a brochure. Agreements where rights are limited in time, venue and usage are commonly referred to as "managed rights" licensing.

Three years later: The once, friendly illustrator seems bent on suing her customer for an amount that is 30 times (or more) of the original fee negotiated.

What happened?

This happened: The original agreement expired without action by either party to recognize the timing of expiration or to negotiate a renewal.

The next communication was the threat of a financially catastrophic, copyright infringement lawsuit in U.S. Federal courts. Experience says that such a litigation process could cost as much as 300 times the amount of the original agreement in this case.

The customer communicated freely, immediately and in writing. An offer was immediately made for additional payment to extend the agreement. No offer was accepted. Instead, greater threats of litigation followed.

Does this seem right to anyone?

Why - did the illustrator wait three years before communicating with the buyer?
Why - not simply make a phone call or invoice at the end of the first year?
Why - did this person contact a lawyer, first, rather than simply make a managed and responsible phone call to the buyer to negotiate an extension?

There's a three-year limitation against which damages can be rewarded in copyright infringement cases. A plaintiff can file anytime, but the limit to damages is 3 years. During that time, the greatest potential for damages is accumulated. Thus, it may be more lucrative for licensors of intellectual properties to manage litigation - and the timing of litigation - rather than extending the original agreement.

It could be no coincidence that the illustrator waited three years.

This scenario is disastrous to both sellers and buyers of managed rights: illustrators, photographers, designers and beyond.

The Keyword is "Managed"
When it comes to licensing of managed rights images, it's important to recognize the potential for harm should the scope of the original agreement be exceeded by the fault or no-fault of either party. It's no wonder that $1, royalty-free image stock companies seem to be fluorishing. Even Getty Images recognizes a trend and recently purchased istockphoto.com from its creators.

A buyer licensed the use of an illustration for a specified period of time to promote services on its website and in a brochure. Agreements where rights are limited in time, venue and usage are commonly referred to as “managed rights” licensing.

Three years later: The once, friendly illustrator seems bent on suing her customer for an amount that is 30 times (or more) of the original fee negotiated.

What happened?

This happened: The original agreement expired without action by either party to recognize the timing of expiration or to negotiate a renewal.

The next communication was the threat of a financially catastrophic, copyright infringement lawsuit in U.S. Federal courts. Experience says that such a litigation process could cost as much as 300 times the amount of the original agreement in this case.

The customer communicated freely, immediately and in writing. An offer was immediately made for additional payment to extend the agreement. No offer was accepted. Instead, greater threats of litigation followed.

Does this seem right to anyone?

Why - did the illustrator wait three years before communicating with the buyer?
Why - not simply make a phone call or invoice at the end of the first year?
Why - did this person contact a lawyer, first, rather than simply make a managed and responsible phone call to the buyer to negotiate an extension?

There’s a three-year limitation against which damages can be rewarded in copyright infringement cases. A plaintiff can file anytime, but the limit to damages is 3 years. During that time, the greatest potential for damages is accumulated. Thus, it may be more lucrative for licensors of intellectual properties to manage litigation - and the timing of litigation - rather than extending the original agreement.

It could be no coincidence that the illustrator waited three years.

This scenario is disastrous to both sellers and buyers of managed rights: illustrators, photographers, designers and beyond.

The Keyword is “Managed”
When it comes to licensing of managed rights images, it’s important to recognize the potential for harm should the scope of the original agreement be exceeded by the fault or no-fault of either party. It’s no wonder that $1, royalty-free image stock companies seem to be fluorishing. Even Getty Images recognizes a trend and recently purchased istockphoto.com from its creators.

A buyer licensed the use of an illustration for a specified period of time to promote services on its website and in a brochure. Agreements where rights are limited in time, venue and usage are commonly referred to as “managed rights” licensing.

Three years later: The once, friendly illustrator seems bent on suing her customer for an amount that is 30 times (or more) of the original fee negotiated.

What happened?

This happened: The original agreement expired without action by either party to recognize the timing of expiration or to negotiate a renewal.

The next communication was the threat of a financially catastrophic, copyright infringement lawsuit in U.S. Federal courts. Experience says that such a litigation process could cost as much as 300 times the amount of the original agreement in this case.

The customer communicated freely, immediately and in writing. An offer was immediately made for additional payment to extend the agreement. No offer was accepted. Instead, greater threats of litigation followed.

Does this seem right to anyone?

Why - did the illustrator wait three years before communicating with the buyer?
Why - not simply make a phone call or invoice at the end of the first year?
Why - did this person contact a lawyer, first, rather than simply make a managed and responsible phone call to the buyer to negotiate an extension?

There’s a three-year limitation against which damages can be rewarded in copyright infringement cases. A plaintiff can file anytime, but the limit to damages is 3 years. During that time, the greatest potential for damages is accumulated. Thus, it may be more lucrative for licensors of intellectual properties to manage litigation - and the timing of litigation - rather than extending the original agreement.

It could be no coincidence that the illustrator waited three years.

This scenario is disastrous to both sellers and buyers of managed rights: illustrators, photographers, designers and beyond.

The Keyword is “Managed”
When it comes to licensing of managed rights images, it’s important to recognize the potential for harm should the scope of the original agreement be exceeded by the fault or no-fault of either party. It’s no wonder that $1, royalty-free image stock companies seem to be fluorishing. Even Getty Images recognizes a trend and recently purchased istockphoto.com from its creators.

Several excellent logo design case studies by John Langdon, enjoy!

AQUARIUS ADVISERS

“ Aquarius Advisers is a marketing & communications consulting firm. The name was chosen as a sign of the times, astrologically speaking, as we have recently entered the Age of Aquarius. There was some deeper thinking behind the name than a cursory thought might suggest. The Age of Aquarius is an age of enlightenment and insight. People born under the sign are said to be interested in science and new ideas. That concept resonated well with the CEO’s background in technology. Aquarians are also philanthropists and are passionate about causes. This aspect appealed to his more recent interests which include cause marketing, social marketing and doing promotional work for non-profits.

The imagery inherent in the name called for direct reference to water, and water’s quality of being constantly in motion nicely accompanies the idea of a dynamic business world. Western cultures see progressive motion as being from left to right — the direction we read, and the direction that italic letterforms lean. The use of a cap A and a lower case A sidesteps the redundancy pitfalls that might be encountered using two caps, and subtly keeps the attention on “Aquarius” as opposed to the more generic term “Advisers.”

Aquarius Advisers Sketches and Roughs

Part one:

Part two:

Aquarius Proposals:

BIG FUN

“The Big Fun logo was done as an extracurricular project for a long-time friend and business associate. The term honors a private amusement between consenting adults that was characterized by an unabashed prurient and lascivious joy.”

Big Fun Sketches and Roughs

Part one:

“The reciprocal equality inherent in the situation was nicely paralleled by the two three letter words. This immediately suggested a yin/yang integration of give and take that could be symbolized by the interstitial relationship between black and white letters. Soon, finding themselves amorously intertwined, the letters were rolling around uncontrollably in a ball, and an extremely happy human face emerged from the entanglement. The carnival huckster just seemed to have the most appropriate expression.”

Part two:

Part three:

JTL

“In the long-shot hope that a unique but professional-looking logo on her new custom-built bike frame might prove helpful should it ever be stolen, my adult daughter asked me to create a logo with her initials. (This being a pro-bono job, I skipped the exploratory sketches and went right to Adobe Illustrator.)”

“Like my JWL initials, Jessica’s JTL has a natural built in bi-lateral symmetry. There’s something nice about that, of course, unless you’re a logo designer who likes to force asymmetrical letters into unexpected symmetries. But I started out yielding to the obvious (fig.1). Having gotten that out of my system, I looked for a way to break the symmetry and also happened to see the possibility of creating a human face (fig.2). This direction allowed for a reference to the 20th century smiley, but with an appropriately ironic, 21st century smirk. Too cutesy. I can’t recall now in which of the first two solutions I saw the front view of a bicycle — tire, handlebars, and legs and feet, — but suddenly, there it was. The piston-like, yin/yang relationship of the pedaling motion provided the hoped-for asymmetry. Or perhaps the hope for asymmetry led to the discovery of the bike imagery.”

KINGS HILL

“This was one of those situation where the name undeniably called for the logo, and I just did what had to be done. Despite the client’s stated mandate that they did not want any pictures of crowns. So I gave them a hill. With four apple trees. They rejected the design. I’m guessing they didn’t like the trees.”

More (clever) logos:

Interview: One of a series of magazine department headings

New York Fashion Industry: Created for competition sponsored by Gloria Vanderbilt/Murjani.

Credits:

John Langdon : Ambigram, Logos, Word Art
Text and graphics © John Langdon 1996-2006 inclusive.

I recently started a project based on ExpressionEngine - however there were two requirements: The first one was to display multiple categories - meaning that I wanted a page to display entries that belong to category x as well as to category y. The second requirement was to change categories dynamically.

Small (Simple) versus Big (Complex)

In R.BIRD's quarter-century, we've worked for clients large and small (1 to 300,000) on projects simple and complex.

Trend
In the last 18 months, the most rewarding projects at R.BIRD have come from "Small" companies with complex problems. The least rewarding projects at R.BIRD have come from "Big" companies with simple problems.

Rewarding?
I define "Rewarding" as: first) profitable (above all else, we seek survival), and second) creatively challenging... as in "love" for what we do. No matter, If it's not profitable, it will not be rewarding.

Small, Big, Simple, Complex, Profitable, Rewarding
Where do you see the balance?

Small (Simple) versus Big (Complex)

In R.BIRD’s quarter-century, we’ve worked for clients large and small (1 to 300,000) on projects simple and complex.

Trend
In the last 18 months, the most rewarding projects at R.BIRD have come from “Small” companies with complex problems. The least rewarding projects at R.BIRD have come from “Big” companies with simple problems.

Rewarding?
I define “Rewarding” as: first) profitable (above all else, we seek survival), and second) creatively challenging… as in “love” for what we do. No matter, If it’s not profitable, it will not be rewarding.

Small, Big, Simple, Complex, Profitable, Rewarding
Where do you see the balance?