Photoshop gets a new logo

Uncategorized

I’ve been remiss in not sharing the news sooner, but I wanted to give it a chance not to get overshadowed by the Photoshop Express excitement.  In any case, I’m pleased to report that the Photoshop family of products now has its own logo and tagline: See What’s Possible™. 

As you no doubt know, “Photoshop” has grown far beyond the side project of Michigan grad student, and even beyond a single application, to encompass a range of functionally different apps–Photoshop CS3, Photoshop CS3 Extended, Photoshop Lightroom, Photoshop Elements, Photoshop Album Starter Edition, and soon Photoshop Express–that all share a solid core of imaging smarts.  As the press docs say,

To represent this rich family of products, Adobe is introducing the Photoshop visual logo.
This logo will soon appear in all Photoshop-related marketing, so keep an eye out for it. The
Photoshop logo on a product, service, or technology, represents the rich legacy, technical
quality, and attention to detail that has made Photoshop the gold standard in digital
imaging.

Or, as The Dude might say, “It really ties the room together.” 😉 Here’s a quick screenshot of the main variations on the logo. [Update: Jeff Schewe has posted a giant version, complete with E.T.]

So, whaddya think?
J.

PS–In light of the above, I can’t resist passing along a totally different example of “Photoshop branding.”

0 thoughts on “Photoshop gets a new logo”

  1. I have to say that I don’t really get it, while on the other hand I understand the motivation.
    As for the logo itself, it will take some getting used to. Just feels wrong to me somehow, but that’s after years of being used to not seeing a PS logo.

  4. I think it’s terrible! And thats putting it nicely 😉
    Plus changing the logo so quickly after re-branding all of the product logos and icons suggest indecision and lack of focus…yeah I read too much marketing technique stuff lately.
    Seriously, this is beyond bad and looks like something I’d expect to see on a $30 Text effect package or something.
    My two cents.

  7. I love Photoshop and have used it every day for many years. This logo looks like iChat reversed and doesn’t speak to what Photoshop is to me. I don’t get this one either… it looks so out of place with the current CS3 icons that I have gradually accepted. Now this flys in the face of those. I don’t see consistency here at all.

  9. I was a pretty staunch defender of the CS3 icon set when announced… but this makes no sense to me.
    What is being conveyed by that logo? Not Photoshop- at least not to me 🙁

  10. I have to agree…I hope this is still changable because it doesn’t have the prestige to represent the application that has revolutionized the digital world so much.

  11. What is it? A speech bubble with a hole in it? What does that have to do with Photoshop? The tagline is confusing too. How does it relate?
    On one hand, I think it’s a good idea to give each of the Adobe products their own logo but why another one separate from the huge set of the Creative Suite?
    Has anyone done any testing for this logo? I formally challenge Adobe to ask at least 25 average people if they can figure it out.
    The direction that Adobe’s been going with the identity of their products has been increasingly disappointing. Nothing is consistent. The look and feel of the boxes is completely different from their logos and now with logos like this, they’re even less consistent. What’s going on, Adobe?

  13. Michael, I think the hole is to make a “P”, and the dialog bubble is… okay… I don’t get it either.
    The logo’s shape feels retro for a forward thinking company. The first thing I thought was that the bubble reminds me of the “everyman” PBS logo (1971-1985). On the other side of the logo, the text screams “Microsoft”. The combo is bad news (but I love PBS). Additionally, the blue glassy texture seems geared for consumer flair and makes me think a little less of Photoshop as a professional program.
    Of course much of the “Photoshop” line is now geared toward the average consumer, so I guess that’s who Adobe needs to be marketing to. I think I’d be happier with something along the professional, crisp lines of the adobe logo.
    (It also looks a little like the National Captioning Institute logo. Nothing new under the sun as they say)

  15. I’ll start by saying that I love the new CS3 application icons and where Adobe is going with those but I really don’t understand this one. I keep thinking there must be some story or meaning behind it.
    Personally, I don’t see a glossy styled gel pill in the shape of a speech bubble representing rich legacy and technical quality.
    but… I’m sure I’ll get use to it.

  17. thats one ugly logo. Did the logo / branding get farmed out to another ad firm or was it done internally?
    Hey at least Photosop kicks ass that it doesn’t need a good logo. :)God I hope I dont get picked on at Adobe now.

  18. Huh. Well, it’s a “P” for Photoshop and also, maybe, a dialog balloon? In aqua. Not sure what I think, exactly. A great logo should have nothing superfluous or meaningless and should convey meaning directly, and stylishly if possible. I guess I’m just not really sure if I get it or not. I didn’t get the Bank of America logo at first, but once it clicked I thought it was pretty ingenious.

  19. Honestly, I had to stop reading for a minute and think whether it was April 1st. I just couldn’t believe it.
    Not trying to be overly critical, but that is such a bad logo for such a great product.
    It’s like someone took the Mac aqua-era look and paired it with some web 2.0 nonsensical-ness.
    I’m sad.
    (Really, I’m not trying to be a troll, but I, like many longtime Photoshop users, am very passionate about this tool Adobe has created. Personally, I don’t see any point to branding something that already had so much street cred. Maybe a good logo would have been okay, but by doing it with this logo, it’s feels like it’s being branded as some kinda toy.)

  20. Nice color and nice try, but to be honest, it does not do much for me. It really does not convey anything, but looks like an Art Director’s luncheon doodling. Sorry.

  24. I do not have the words to express how much I dislike it. Not only does the speech bubble have nothing to do with photo editing, but everyone and their grandma is using it. It’s the #1 resort of the creatively deficient and I’m very disappointed Adobe took this route. Just look here: over 61 speech bubble logos!
    http://blog.eachday.com/2007/8/1/bubble-logo-insanity/

  25. I’m sorry but I hate it.
    The speech bubble is so web 2.0 and cliche and the “see what’s possible” is one of the most incredibly hackneyed taglines possible for software in this genre.
    The only thing I do like is the typeface.

  26. Looks very much to me like a logo for a Microsoft product. Not that I have anything against Micrsoft but you’d expect something a bit more creative from Adobe.

  30. It’s a pity that an application suite traditionally reknowned for cutting edge, professional creative media use, has been given such a hackneyed logo and tagline. Truly awful!

  31. I was able to zoom in on the new logo above, and discovered the secret message inside the bubble (nicely done). For everyone’s benefit, it reads: “Adobe invites the community to show us what’s possible, by designing a real logo for the new Photoshop line of products. The winner’s name will be placed in front of Thomas Knolls on the loading screen.” Very cool! 😉
    [ 😉 –J.]

  33. I have to agree with everyone else. Love the product. Have used it daily for 11yrs, hate the new logo.
    Apart from anything else, the logo, text and tagline are 3 disparate objects sitting on the page. Lots of space between them, nothing drawing them together or showing they’re a group. On a page of logos in a conference brochure etc I think this logo will look especially bad.
    Sorry, Aaron.

  34. Look just like E.T.! And seriously, someone should phone your marketing department and ask them what they were smoking.
    What happened to the well-known eye? Why are you dilluting the Photoshop brand like this?

  35. If you turned the text round, kinda reminds me of this
    Must say I don’t like strap lines, they are a bit redundant. People care about as much as they do about a company mission statement.
    If you are going to have one, why not make it a little more specific? Suggestions:
    “We make B3TA.com possible”
    “Super filters for bad photographers”
    “Swapping celebrities heads since 1987”
    “Why loose weight?”
    😀

  36. If photoshop is going to be an Instant Messenger then i think it looks ok.
    But hey, this is Photoshop, not a web2-ish application. It should stand at the top of the pile, and it doesn’t.
    Poor result

  37. Comon, its 2007 and you guys come out with something like that? I have allways liked Adobe product logos.. but now this?! Comon guys.. just let it be like it is atm..

  38. Horrible. 🙁 Please don’t stick with this. Seems someone forgot Adobe is catering to creative professionals and not to myspace kids. And you know how unforgiving we designers can be. You’re hurting our baby.
    I understand marketing’s need for a logo, but this is just ugly. I’m not going to go into details, as others have already mentioned some of the issues (such as Sol). Meh. 🙁

  39. What are the concepts that this logo is supposed to encapsulate or express, John?
    I can’t see how it’s related to Photoshop.

  40. There’s an even bigger problem looming here… and it’s the dilution of the Adobe Photoshop brand. Don’t get me wrong… I love the idea of having a Photoshop for every person, but where do you draw the line? There are 5 versions of Photoshop right now: Photoshop Album Starter Edition, Photoshop Elements, Lightroom, Photoshop and Photoshop Extended. And that’s not even including the forthcoming Photoshop Online (or whatever you all will choose to call it). It’s madness, I tell you.
    But I digress…
    RE: New Photoshop logo
    The logo itself is going to take some getting used to. My first thought was that it reminded me of PBS. It also looks like someone just discovered Layer Effects. (From previous comments here, I see these thoughts are not all uncommon.) Overall, I don’t think it’s bad, but as I said earlier: It’s going to take some getting used to.
    RE: Slogan/Tagline
    “See What’s Possible” isn’t bad. I’m very interested to see what sort of direction the advertising will take. (I hope, for our sakes, the creepy jester won’t make an appearance in any of it!)
    [Heh–no comment about that crazy thing. (Wait, I think I just commented.) 😉 –J.]

  41. While i think it is terrible, no logo would have impressed a bunch of graphic designers. Photoshop’s market is graphics professionals. Graphics professionals will hate it, and think of how they could have done an infinitely better job. Whoever in the Adobe PR department thought this was a good idea needs to be fired.

  43. Judging by all the negative comments (which I agree with), maybe this logo thing is actually a joke. Surely J. Nack, who admits to some marketing interests (as well as the PS “boss”)
    [Hah–I’m the “boss” of two things, “…and Jack just left town.” Also, for reference, I don’t control logos, icons, etc. –J.]
    would want something more contemporary than Apple’s original year 2000 Aqua blob style.
    Or is it a retro thing? But Photoshop should not be viewed as retro. You guys should focus on Healing Brushes and things we can actually use.

  46. I have to agree with everybody else. It’s ridiculous.
    I’d really like to get in the heads of the marketing geniuses that came up with this. Does anybody remember the New Coke?

  47. I have to agree with everybody else. I don’t know what it is, I don’t know what it’s supposed to represent…It’s ridiculous.
    I’d really like to get in the heads of the marketing geniuses that came up with this. Does anybody remember the New Coke?

  48. Terrible. Just terrible.
    You’d think Adobe could afford to hire some more creative people than that. At least if you’re trying to create a family within a family, expand on the solid square icon system. Possibly variations on the blue PS square.
    [Well, having absorbed some 500 comments on that subject, almost all of which were aggressively negative, I do find it a little funny that A) almost no one seems to have a problem with the icons now that they’ve used them & seen the full CS3 branding, and B) folks would now suggest that Adobe further leverage that imagery. I’m not saying we should or shouldn’t; I’m just learning to take public tongue-lashings with some grains of salt. –J.]

  52. I’m a writer so I will speak to the slogan. It looks like someone tried to slightly alter the smoother phrase, “Explore the Possibilities.” So “See What’s Possible” becomes the awkward alternative. Not sure what the answer is, but Michael Freeman, in his book “The Photographer’s Eye,” notes that digital imaging has created an as-yet undefined revolution. For example, color was initially seen as inferior to black and white, but the public demanded it. Kodachrome got the public used to underexposed saturated color, and it was extolled in a song. What will the digital revolution do? Create a demand for HDR photos and the elimination of shadows? Create a demand for panoramas? We don’t know yet. Something that acknowledges the digital revolution, primarily led by digital technology and, second, Photoshop, might be considered. Turn that over to the ad agency.

  53. I was going to comment on the new marketeering, but I see that everything I wanted to say has already been said. So I’ll just add my “thumbs down” to the vote tally.
    I can only add that I hope this abomination (along with the PsCS3 Windows printing fiasco) doesn’t augur the senility or ossification of once-venerable Adobe.

  55. Did the Adobe Corp people ask you before they did it? It’s your world they’re messing around with.
    But not to fear, Adobe Corp. Myself and others will continue to pay cash-money for the apps even if their boxes are designed by the San Jose Jr. High School art class.
    [“Crowdsourcing” is the hot thing these days, you know. 😉 But ultimately, yeah, this has no bearing whatsoever on the capabilities of Photoshop. –J.]

  56. Well, John, I think you now should be really happy you’re not in marketing — or you’d at least be partly responsible for that weird, clumsy logo symbol, which communicates nothing of the solid, professional product we all know PS to be. Whatever happened to the tasteful, stylish Adobe Systems Inc. which Warnock and Geschke founded?
    [Oh, I don’t know: was the original logo *that* stylish? –J.]

  57. As my creative director pointed out to me earlier today, here’s another version of this concept already in use:
    http://designdirektorat.de
    He went so far as to use the word “plagiarism” but I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt. 😉
    @John Nack: regarding the CS3 application icons and public tongue-lashings: yes, those did take a while getting used to, but they’re ok. They make sense considering the large amount of apps in the suite. That doesn’t mean it’s the same for every design, however. For instance, I still think the uninspired glossy-effect redesign of last.fm sucks. It’s a pain to look at. Just because people stop complaining doesn’t make something less mediocre.
    Sorry, but this thing just feels so cheap.

  58. The first thing I thought of was PBS as well, but with less class. I hate to be a critic, especially of a company and product I use and love so much, but this just doesn’t convey a the professionalism and high-quality I have come to associate with Photoshop.

  59. Wow. Is this for real? I’m embarrassed to be a designer…Photoshop has sold out to appeal to every mom who wants to “photoshop” photos of their kids.
    It doesn’t fit the CS3 brand at all. We go from colored smoke and square application icons that look really nice in the dock to goofy gel pills. Please tell me you didn’t change the application icon and this is all a cruel joke.

  60. Why a logo now? and this thing?
    It was either a slow work day at Adobe? or a new Photoshop executive came into the scene and, as usual, decided to make her imprint. Very bad mark! 🙂

  61. Puh-leese.
    Take a some ‘aqua’, mix it with a M$-inspired tagline… Was it an intern that designed this new logo?
    I really hoped this was a joke. Mostly because its just more (bad, useless) marketing from adobe.
    Sorry, no like!!

  63. What?! Does not Adobe have the financial resources to hire professionals? Poor dears must be pocket-drained from rampant piracy! Too bad they didn’t implement an activation system to stop that. Oh, waaait a minute…

  64. Here’s a test. Paste that logo onto PS CS3 and see if you still like it.
    My opinion is that it looks like the Quark toilet paper logo (the one stolen from some university in Europe) that they’ve since abandoned. You guys sure you want that association?
    The CS3 icons still suck, BTW. They’re not unattractive and they’re unique, but they’re also irredeemably arrogant.

  65. Definite thumbs down. This is really bad. My first impression (like others) was a single quotation mark. I go the feeling of writing, text or speech. Non of which have anything to do with Photoshop.
    I have done a lot of corporate re-branding projects and understand it’s difficult to build consensus. But this is just strategically off the mark.
    Of course I also don’t agree with how you are diluting the photoshop brand by extending it into lesser apps and web-based editors.

  69. Congratulations! You’ve managed to make the (still horrifyingly bad) CS3 application icons look good by comparison!
    Seriously, is there anyone with any taste still in charge over there?

  70. Mine Got are you guys confused. You dive into the periodic table with zeal to integrate the product line and reduce individual product identities to a minimum. A few holdouts like Acrobat had either too much equity or some effective internal opposition, so a complete molecularization didn’t happen. Although I’m not a fan of the periodic non-identity, I’ve had to admit that the simple icons are relatively easy to identify – so they meet my basic needs for functionality.
    Now it looks like the generic approach has been trash-canned for distinct product logos and even taglines. How do you change identity directions so drastically? Is there any kind of a coherent Adobe identity touchstone, or do you guys just hire a new marketing manager or outside pitchster and turn on your heels to follow?
    The new logo sux, and the tagline is mundane. But I’m more worried that Adobe, the fountainhead of tools for design, is visually schizophrenic. Was it something Adobe ate? I thought the periodic table scheme was just prolonged Macromedia indigestion. The symptoms are getting worse and it’d better get an exam.

  71. It appears other people have already noted that the new logo looks like a sideview of E.T. – the thing is, just like E.T., the logo looks a bit top heavy.

  73. My favorite is;
    Saved workspace doesn’t stick when changing to a different one, then back.
    [I’m not aware of this one, but I’ll ask the team. Workspaces are presets: if you apply one, then change palette/panel locations, then apply the workspace again, those changes wouldn’t be applied to the saved workspace definition. That is, workspaces aren’t modes. –J.]
    Another popular complaint is, a not sharp preview.
    For more see the Bridge/Mac forum.
    http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.3bba3d51/
    [That’s a known issue, and we’ll fix it. –J.]

  74. Um. Yeah. You know, the Dude abides and all that, but…that icon is poop. Plain, fly-drawing, stinking poop. And the flurry of trademark/registered symbols on it really does a lot to emphasize the poopitude. They should change the name to iPhotoshopChat™©® and throw in some pinstripes and an IM client to make the image complete. Cripes, to think this is the product of the company that actually develops Photoshop. Wow. Boil my eyes now, please.
    [Heh–that’s colorful, anyway. –J.]

  75. Adobe should have just put PS with the S sideways, like its broken, similar to CS3 with the problems… that have yet to fixed.
    thumbs and toes down!!!

  76. I’m sorry but I’ll have be another one to complain. It looks like a cyanized iChat. Maybe they are really replacing dialog boxes with phone calls after all 🙂
    I still think the new icons don’t work either. They sure look sober and unify the suite, but icons shouldn’t need letters to be differentiable.
    I must admit that I have a slightly unhealthy attachment to this things. Just yesterday I got really pissed by the new “decoration” in a bar I usually go to. It now looks like a back to the future II scenario, full with horizontally stretched soccer games in their plasma TVs. But I digress.
    Thankfully, Adobe has shown that their marketing team’s excessive pragmatism doesn’t affect their products quality wise. Photoshop 10 is solid, faster than its previous versions (even on PPC) and full of new inspiring features. Though I would really love to glance at The Eye or Venus in my Dock. When Adobe and Apple get frequently criticized by their design choices ( 3D dock, transparent menu …) things start to get creepy.

  77. PBS (Public Broadcasting System) is the very first thing that popped into my mind when I saw that logo. My 2 cents says it’s not a good idea specifically for that reason. If many people immediately think of PBS when seeing that logo, it seems a better concept should be considered to give Photoshop it’s own, well deserved identity.

  78. On the periodic icons:
    I think anybody who’s seen the way the Adobe icons stand out in the dock will realize that the preriodic/non-pictoral way was a great idea. It looks smart, professional and solid.
    On the new logo:
    I also first looked around for signs of it being a joke. Like everybody else I fail to find anything that really works about it.
    I also have a hard time seeing how it ties in with the icons and Adobes corporate identity at large.
    I hate being negative – and usually when I enter at room full of a crowd all agreeing, I tend to take the opposite view. But in this case I can’t play the devils advocate. The logo simply sucks. 🙁

  80. Wow. I popped over to your site after seeing this in my RSS reader just to comment about how great I thought the logo was, and was totally SHOCKED to see the negative responses! Tough crowd!
    To me it blends all together everything that is Photoshop. A P, a camera (that’s what the hole is, right – a viewfinder?)…and the comment-ish shape seems to look towards a social/community future (for PS Express).
    Honestly, all you designers just don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re too quick to criticize, just because you’re designers. I’ve interviewed many designers and I can say I’d be hard pressed to find many who could do a better job. If any.
    I do kind of wonder why it was necessary to create a different logo when the “elements” icons are used for everything else, but I’m guessing that you felt the need for a “stand alone” logo as Photoshop becomes a more mainstream product with Express. People who only use PS but not any other Adobe products (except maybe Reader) – you know, the ones who call it “Adobe” – won’t get the integrated logo scheme.

  87. Granted, John — the first Adobe logo wasn’t *that* stylish (and it should be a dire warning to all CEOs of pulling the “my wife’s a designer, I’ll have her do our logo” routine). But Adobe wised up within a few years. Until now. Was this new PS logo perhaps done by Bruce Chizen’s “very talented” nephew from Brooklyn? 🙂

  88. This logo is entirely wrong. The flat version doesn’t look so bad (in and of itself), but the aqua-pill effect turns it to absolute rubbish. A big weird P? Uninspiring, to say the least.
    You can start charging about half for your software. This logo makes it’s worth look that much less.

  89. almost no one seems to have a problem with the icons now that they’ve used them
    Not so fast. They’re still basically loathed, but what’s left to do now that the entire CS3 suite has, for the time being, been tarnished? Move on, get back to work, try to ignore them, and hope for less foolishness somewhere on down the road.

  91. As someone who has used Photoshop for 15 years, I have to say this is brain damaged. Aside from looking like Real Networks went all “Web 2.0!” with their logo, this has NOTHING to do with anything related to Photoshop’s abilities and goals. If you have to explain your logo, your logo is not a logo, it’s just a blob.
    Please, do what Palm did, see that your userbase is telling you you’re going down the wrong path, and FIX IT.

  93. [I’m not aware of this one, but I’ll ask the team. Workspaces are presets: if you apply one, then change palette/panel locations, then apply the workspace again, those changes wouldn’t be applied to the saved workspace definition. That is, workspaces aren’t modes. –J.]
    If I choose a canned workspace after my custom workspace, then choose my custom workspace preset.
    Click out of Bridge.
    Bring it back up.
    My custom workspace does not come back.
    I have to choose it again.
    The only way I can have the custom workspace available every time I bring up Bridge is to choose it then quit Bridge.
    But if I want to see another workspace, it starts over again.
    This is the same kind of problem seen with the last folder used issue.
    [Thanks for the details. Let me see what I can find out. –J.]

  95. Re: nobody complaining about the CS3 icons–
    Those of us who hate them have probably replaced them. I used some CS2-style ones from Deviantart (or whatever it’s called), but I’m still looking for the old Eye and the Venus.
    [Yeah, I hear that. It is perhaps not coincidental that the Lightroom beta splash screen featured a very prominent eye near the name “Mark Hamburg.” –J.]

  96. I thought the Periodic thing had some merit. I am surprised by how pedestrian the PS logo is. That is my positive view. The only thing dumber than this logo is the notion that we will be alright with it after awhile. The views here are more than designer snobbery; the logo does not have any redeeming quality.

  98. Dead solid amateurish crap.
    Like I used to do, ohhh, 9 or 10 years ago when I first bought Photoshop
    I’d be ashamed to even show that among an array of different ideas to a client.

  99. Did anyone outside the boardromm and the designer(s) say they liked it?
    An awful implementation of a pointless idea!

  102. geeze…that logo looks like crap. No offense but if your trying to represent one of the most popular graphic program with that, you will fail 😛

  103. I see a lot of comments mentioning the table-of-elements graphic along with this new one, and I’m hoping for a bit of clarification… I had assumed when I got PS CS3 and saw this graphic that you guys were re-branding, and that this was the new emblem for Photoshop. (Ironically, I really liked it. It’s a step back from the overly shiny interfaces everyone’s into these days, and it’s clean, smooth, and professional. I love the typeface). Now, I see that there’s a “new Photoshop logo.” Where does this fit in? Are you guys moving away from the 2 letter boxes already? Is this like a second, additional PS identity? Will I be downloading an update with a new splash screen?
    I was impressed with the way that Adobe generated a simple, clean, unified way to bring together all of its legacy and newly-acquired products graphically. But now I’m a bit confused…Is there more info coming?
    Final parting shot: I agree with one particular criticism of the new logo very strongly: it’s based on a speech box. Something we don’t know about PS CS4? 😀

  104. That is terrible! Photoshop is finally coming of age more and more and integrating with various other technologies and becoming more and more cutting edge…..
    and now a logo that looks like a 1994 Alienskin plug-in first attempt!
    I am sure Microsoft is happy that Adobe is breaking it own new brand image it founded with CS3, nothing can help competitors more than confusion in a product line.
    Terrible…. what is even the need ?
    + -1 YUCK!!

  105. Photoshop is a premium product, and yet this logo looks like it would fit perfectly for a bit of shareware.
    Photoshop barely even needs a logo, it’s a strong brand! Even if you were to give it a logotype, you certainly don’t need a brandmark.

  106. Is it me or it looks awful like Microsoft Silverlight (colors, font except silverlight is way better on the subject and ideea) and a bubble that has no meaning whatsoever in this context?
    Bad choise.
    Make a contest for a new logo, it’s trendy and might get something good also.

  107. Well, how you do be-little and commercialise an industry already plagued by talentless hacks?…An industry plagued by under-qualified, “photoshop” dabblers that claim they are professionals?
    You market a program with a logo that looks like PBS’ with a glass/gloss effect, & has the makings of a consumer focused campaign.
    Call it a speech bubble with a hole, call it a ‘P’ with an embellished triangular stem and off-centre hole..or a human/alien like head formation…I don’t care what you call it..
    the bottom line is it’s not appropriate for the true audience, but it is obvious, Adobe wants to make Photoshop mainstream…so every man woman and child is using photoshop in some way shape or form. Good for bottom line..but bad for brand.
    Loyalists are not pleased.

  109. John,
    Just curious given the overwhelming negative opinions, does Adobe read this kind of feedback or is it a done-deal?
    [Everything is read, certainly. As to what happens as a result, that’s decided by other folks, at a pay grade above my own. –J.]

  111. I participated in a focus group regarding this identity update. Can’t say much more than that, except that perhaps we should think of photoshop as a brand beyond an imaging program…

  112. Are Adobe incapable of excellence nowadays? Or indeed, anything remotely original? First the new app icons, and now this. That logo strikes me as a cross between the branding for the MS Expression apps and the Open University logo.
    The flat colour versions are particularly insipid. And exactly what does a speech bubble have to do with image manipulation?

  113. Are Adobe incapable of excellence nowadays? Or indeed, anything remotely original? First the new app icons, and now this. That logo strikes me as a cross between the branding for the MS Expression apps and the Open University logo.
    The flat colour versions are particularly insipid. And exactly what does a speech bubble have to do with image manipulation?

  115. The first think I think about when I see this is a chat application with a dated icon. I think it’s terrible. The box designs are amazing, why can’t you guys just use those designs?

  116. I don’t understand why Photoshop needs separate branding from the CS3 suite branding. It doesn’t make any sense to me. I didn’t initially like the CS3 branding, but after seeing the suite in its entirety, at least it all goes together. Now you have this graphic/icon that looks like it came out of Redmond, and it goes against the branding you just asked the public to accept.
    Whomever is running the marketing/creative on this stuff needs to be flogged.

  117. All the negativity aside, I love my Photoshop and couldn’t live without it.
    I just don’t understand the need for a new logo right after the CS3 rebranding.

  118. Wow, nobody has a positive thing to say about that horrible logo? I’d have wanted to slip it in under the radar too.
    Anyway I will give some positive feedback:
    It looks like a “P” which is cool.. you know because the product is called “P”hotoshop.. so people will see the letter and think of words that start with “P” like.. “P”hotoshop. Brilliant!
    How about you change the tagline to “‘P’ is for ‘Photoshop'” to go along with it though? Since it’s blue people will think of Cookie Monster, and honestly, who doesn’t like Cookie Monster?
    I’m also really happy that I have to type the word photoshop again to prove I’m a human. I really love “P”hotoshop!

  120. Well, if they want something generic and ambiguous, they succeeded. Its simultaneously reminiscent of the PBS logo:
    http://www.nss.org/images/pbs_logo.gif
    and the ichat logo:
    http://media.arstechnica.com/images/tiger/ichat-icon.png
    It also looks sort of like a the end of a pipe, snaking around a corner…
    Or my favorite: a pac-man sort of thing gobbling up the TM sign.
    However, any connection to a graphic editing program seems pretty oblique to me.

  121. Adobe seem just to have an emphasis on [bad] marketing. Tag lines, meaningless drivel about solutions, and new crappy logos.
    Case in point: compare
    http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/
    with a bunch of actors showing you how they somehow manage to utilize every whiz-bang feature of adobe products into their imaginary projects, dreamed up by marketing to show case features.
    Compare that to http://www.apple.com/pro/
    Where they still focus on mac products, but the primary emphasis is on some amazing visionaries and the work that they do. REAL PEOPLE and how apple products help them kick ass (but mostly it’s about them being awesome).
    One focuses on their own products and feature sets.. one points to the pros and says – all you need to know is that the best of the best do it with our stuff.
    Apple still have the feature tours that show off every bell and whistle. They just don’t try and dress them up with the fake customers.
    Adobe need to stop insulting their users with all of this crummy marketing and just get on with showing their apps and some of the awesome work (it’s out there!) that’s been done with them.

  122. BAD design.
    STUPID marketing tag line.
    Go hire someone good.
    [I’m just learning to take public tongue-lashings with some grains of salt. –J.]
    I still don’t like them.

  123. Adobe seem just to have an emphasis on [bad] marketing. Tag lines, meaningless drivel about solutions, and new crappy logos.
    Case in point: compare
    http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/
    with a bunch of actors showing you how they somehow manage to utilize every whiz-bang feature of adobe products into their imaginary projects, dreamed up by marketing to show case features.
    Compare that to http://www.apple.com/pro/
    Where they still focus on mac products, but the primary emphasis is on some amazing visionaries and the work that they do. REAL PEOPLE and how apple products help them kick ass (but mostly it’s about them being awesome).
    One focuses on their own products and feature sets.. one points to the pros and says – all you need to know is that the best of the best do it with our stuff.
    Apple still have the feature tours that show off every bell and whistle. They just don’t try and dress them up with the fake customers.
    Adobe need to stop insulting their users with all of this crummy marketing and just get on with showing their apps and some of the awesome work (it’s out there!) that’s been done with them.

  126. This looks like a logo Microsoft would make, complete with it’s own vague aspirational headline. Please leave the big-ass blue P’s for Depend adult diaper absorbability demos.

  127. Not TERRIBLE, but I don’t get the point either. And why have different symbols for the app and Photoshop itself? I wish they had just stuck with Aphrodite: by now it would have been truly iconic and the point moot.

  128. I think the logo is terrible, but I have never liked any branding Adobe has done, and wouldn’t expect anything else from them. Their company logo is decent, some of their type is really good, but I think we should all just look at Adobe as a technical software company that makes decent, overpriced software with the features we ask them for (and some useless ones we don’t).

  129. Someone want to let me in on why an application needs a logo above and beyond its own icon? It seems the overall logic here is that Photoshop has so many spinoffs, that there is a need to tie them back together in the minds of the buying public (like a “Photoshop seal of approval,”) but doesn’t that REALLY mean that Photoshop’s been splintered and shorn down so much that it has lost some of its identity, and that fashioning a logo to spot-weld them back together is, you know, NOT a good idea?

  131. And from a purely practical standpoint, based upon the shadow depths and highlights at the left and top compared to those on the inside and right, the logo would have to be made from a seriously deformed chunk of glass, if not an impossible object entirely.

  133. Might as well pile on.
    The Photoshop “brand” was already confusing as hell (Lightroom?), but now, with a logo completely unrelated to any of the app icons… gosh.
    Tag line is insipid.
    Who’s driving the branding bus over there?
    Maybe some of the resources spent on this sort of nonsense could be devoted to engineering app updates that install correctly.
    Sorry John, you’re a good sport, and I appreciate the fact that you’re hanging it out there by soliciting feedback on this, but Adobe has other issues… Really good software, but the details so often get screwed up. : /

  136. With the previous versions of the CS Suite, I always found it frustrating that the Icons seemed to be designed to look pretty rather than be functionally recognizable. I don’t need decoration on my dock, when I’m dragging a document to an application I need to find the right application quickly – feathered Icons just impede my productivity.
    The CS3 icons were the first where it was immediately obvious which Icon represented which product, and those Icons further stood out on the dock. This one is going to disappear into the clutter of ‘Guess what this app is’ Icons made so popular by Microsoft Office.
    Whatever happened to ‘Fit in, Stand out’? This seems to be branding Photoshop in a way quite contrary to the Creative Suite Integration that’s presented so effectively everywhere else.

  137. I don’t get the logo either, I don’t get what it’s trying to convey, and it’s a direct bite off Aqua which wouldn’t be so bad if it was 5 years ago and it hadn’t already been done to death.
    I’ve always loved the Adobe icons through the years, but I understand the need for a real logo. They really need to bring in some new people and start from scratch, and hopefully keep the suits out of it as much as possible.
    As bad as the logo is, the real travesty here is the tagline. This is the kind of tagline that I expect from a bank. It’s so vague as to be meaningless. All it says is, “we’re a giant corporation with a bigger marketing budget than R&D.” I think a tagline for Photoshop is a mistake… why not build the brand around the “silent superiority” for which Photoshop has always been known?

  138. WHAT THE HELL IS THAT? Are you kidding me… what did you goto the local highschool and ask some kids to create a logo? I don’t get it? The logo you have groups the family, uh, brings reference to the related product line… and doesn’t this have the same type face as ‘silverlight’? yeah. Again. What? You must be kidding right?

  139. Not a fan at all. It feels like Adobe is losing touch with it’s design base; you can’t argue against this looking close to a Microsoft logo. Silverlight style icon, Tradmark or Registered symbol on every little element they could, type is similar… don’t they know that this branding has been frowned on for some time?

  143. You guys seem so stoked about your “range of products,” but most people just use a couple of them, and we don’t care about whether the identity works across four or five or thirty products, most of which we’ve never heard of.
    Just come out with one or two Photoshop versions as indendent releases, and give it a decent icon, that looks like it’s worthy of such an expensive program. It really toasts me to look at that P-in-a-box in my Dock everyday.
    Did you know that Mac users will have a few new choices when Leopard comes out? You sort of have your users by the balls because of the learning curve and features of Photoshop, but I’m going to take a serious look at those new apps based on Leopard’s new graphics underpinnings.
    Anyway, more and more, Adobe is starting to smell like it’s doing a Quark, with marketing considerations and security paranoia overshadowing a good overall user experience.

  144. I love it, it actually makes a clear statement about…OK I HATE IT, I just figured there should be one person that doesn’t hang Adobe out to dry on this. I tried…and failed. But at least I’m not the first (see iChat meets Pac-Man logo above)

  145. I’d like to say that I LOVE the periodic table app icons. I thought it was a brilliant idea and I think they look cool.
    Not a fan of the logo above, or the tagline, or the type treatment, I agree with whomever said it looks too much like Silverlight. But I’ve already bought the thing, so I don’t care so much about the marketing of it.

  146. I wish they would spend some of the money they’re making with Photoshop to buy a book like “designing brand identity”. This logo is a disgrace. Design is a profession! Why don’t the people at Adobe take it seriously?

  147. The logo notwithstanding, the very phoney video testimonials are just completely laughable. Why even pretend these are actual imaging professionals? “I’m a professional photographer” – she holding that camera about as comfortably as a rattlesnake. Their agency is out of its mind…

  148. I wasn’t a fan of the CS3 icons, but next to this they look like genius.
    Sorry, but it’s awful. It was obviously a very bad day when this got designed.
    Photoshop doesn’t need a crap strap line either. It’s ubiquitous, and the only thing that could be achieved by something so naff as See What’s Possible™ is to make people embarrassed to talk about the app.
    Please, the reaction here isn’t neophobia, it’s the ten-thousand-strong voice of reason.

  149. It looks ugly, it’s not really a logo, nor it is symbol. It looks like it’s taken from some puzzle book. This blog has much better logo (lion or dragon) – I’d applause of Adobe had taken something like that for Photoshop logo. Photoshop is the king (or lion) of all photo-editing applications. But this new logo is just plain stupid…

  150. This move is just bizarre to me. I have always been a big fan of Adobe branding — the launch graphics, the Creative Suite family, and recently, the color swatches. However, this strikes me as completely foreign.
    To start, the mark looks a bit goofy. It doesn’t have that timeless quality that I expect from Adobe.
    And how will this translate to the greater Creative Suite? Will every CS product get a similar cheese-treatment?
    Why the tagline? Adobe has built an empire without throw-away taglines — why start now? Will every product get a useless tagline? Illustrator – “Go for it!”, After Effects – “Magic in Motion!”, etc.
    Adobe has always been selling to a smart, professional audience. This treatment just doesn’t feel appropriate to me.
    -j

  152. Why a dialog balloon? Even in the limited domain of comic lettering where such a logo would make sense, it’s confusing. Everyone uses Illustrator to make their balloons.

  153. Love it or hate it, does it matter? Seriously, who’s left that you have to convince, ‘Oh, hey, what’s this photoshop thing?’ You could label it any way you want, and it’d still sell because, well, photoshop.
    Try this: Use a plain recycled-brown cardboard box, with no labels except ‘Photoshop: the lesser one’ and ‘Photoshop: the really good one’. Add in the tagline: “Yeah, we changed the icons again. What’cha gonna do about it, hunh? Try color correction in Gimp? I don’t think so.™” It’d still sell.
    I would have added in using Comic Sans for the text, but people with bleeding eyes don’t buy as much.

  157. I agree with many of the others. I think it’s a terrible logo. It really does NOT do justice to the most influential app in the history of Graphic Design and Photography.
    Poor poor job Adobe.

  158. At first glance, i really did not like the new PS logo. But then looking at it more, I feel like it represents speaking through photography because the logo reminds me of an abstracted camera mixed with a speak bubble. I do agree that there could have been something a little more creative though, coming from an Adobe product.

  159. Periodic table to Web 2.0 pastiche. I’m trying to be constructive and the only thing I can think of is that it will probably change gain in 8-12 months anyway.
    The logo is also completely the wrong shape for the mac icon bar – horizontal not vertical icons no?
    The design has no relation to what it will be used for.
    Sorry..

  160. Let’s stop being negative and think about this for one second: many of us have been using Photoshop for many years and it has become a staple in the design industry. Even if Adobe decides to recreate it’s logo (or branding, whatever you like to use), will that actually stop us from using it? Of course not.
    Photoshop, and many of the other Adobe Products, are now at the level where the branding is of lesser importance. We can blabber on and on regarding how ugly the logo is, but the truth is people will buy and use Photoshop simply because it is Photoshop. We don’t buy this application because the icon will look cool with our new Leopard dock or because the identity design is so fab.. No, of course not.
    The problem with many people is that we confuse the product with the branding. Whine all day long, but see if a friggin’ blue holed speech bubble will keep you from actually opening Ps.
    And from the number of the things people said the new logo looked like, it seems that the new tagline really did work.. You already saw what’s possible.

  161. Like many, when I saw the new PS CS3 icon in the beta, I assumed it was a placeholder…
    But once the suite got realease, and I put them in my dock , it really make sense! It’s actually much closer to the old macromedia icons than the Adobe ones, but it’s a good thing.
    OK, Ps and Ai and very emblematic icons (eye & venus), but else how do you intergrate them with so many others products ?
    And now, I can instantly recognize the correct icon. Think not only of the big and pretty OSX dock, but also of the tiny windows taskbar: when you have 10 icons of 16*16 px, the letters really help.
    No regarding this new photoshop “brand”… I see what you’re trying to do, getting some “halo effect” © from the world famous photoshop name. It makes sense for Photoshop Elements (the best idea to smartly fight piracy ever, IMHO)), much less for Photoshop Album or Lightroom. My guess is that this “new” common branding and it icon make much more sense with the futur Photoshop express (the online one) : if they try to make it not only as an image editing tool but also image sharing and commenting (à la Flickr), it could make sense…
    I’m afraid that by overusing the photoshop brand, you’ll delude it. Again compare to what apple did with Final cut: they use the same name in Final Cut express for their light version of it, but use a totaly different name for the related product when it is too different (iMovie). Same thing for Lgic, Logic express & Garage Band).
    Now that’s a long comment :-/

  162. Granted, the mark is not terribly original, but honestly, if the other core apps (Illustrator, InDesign, Flash…) end up with nice, simple marks like that, I think the core suite could be visually differentiated better than it is currently.
    All that seems odd to me is the masthead doesn’t look like it’s set in Alber (though I’m not familiar enough with the family to say for sure).

  163. 1. Is this supposed to encompass all elements of PS, and then you’ll have a separate CS logo?
    2. Why does it look like a chat bubble? I get the ‘P’, but you have to admit it looks like the iChat logo. What does chatting have to do with PS?
    3. This thing smells of practical joke. Is it?

  164. While I appreciate the work that must have gone into this, the logo looks far too much like a reversed iChat icon. (Or is it the RealPlayer logo?)
    Why a talk bubble for Photoshop? It seems to have nothing to do with photos or what photoshop can do, other than it might have been made in it.
    The tagline seems unnecessary. It doesn’t tell me anything about the product.
    I do like the font, though. Nice and clean.

  165. I’m getting some “cheesy Photoshop tutorial site’s easy aqua button trick” vibes off it. With a hole. And a drop shadow. What’s weird is that I can think of at least a half dozen more check boxes in the Layer Style dialog that could’ve been used as well. Tsk.
    I’m also 99.9% sure the TM is unnecessary.

  166. the idea to make a logo like this and the way it’s came out fit perfectly into my perception of the company today.
    a huge company with way too many products that has completely forgotten what their basis is.
    – the applications are not much more than bloatware these days.
    – customer service is nonexistent.
    – european prices are up to 2.6 times of what they are in the u.s.
    – the different groups inside adobe seem to fight each other and it shows through the products
    – adobe says it’s not tested the CS3 suite yet on Mac OS X Leopard (which has to be a complete joke)
    – products get separated to increase margins (Vista home, vista business, vista ultimate – photoshop elements, photoshop CS3, photoshop CS3 extended)
    i can only wish for apple or another third party developer to get their act together and create real competition to this stuff. adobe is being the worst mix of quark and microsoft these days.
    and it’s sad. it’s just very sad. i’ve been using photoshop on a regular basis since version 2.5. that and many of the other apps.
    and now it has come to this. your basic focus group marketing company…

  169. I think it’s great!!
    It looks like a question mark, so i think it matches the whole “Gee i don’t know… Oh, wait, See what’s possible? YEA!” vibe, thingie, stuff.

  171. To me, the photoshop logo has always been an eye within a frame and I don’t see any reason to change it. I was used to it for years like that, as an icon on my Mac desktop from my old Mac Plus to my G3 Mac until they change their icons to all that fancy butterfly and flowers stuff. The new logo says nothing to me. It could belong to a chat client or something similar. I don’t understand why big companies adopt such bad logos. I make logos and they are not like that. It’s pityful.

  172. This is what happens when you give an app a bad icon. It then needs a logo. If anybody had given any sort of rational thought to this re-branding process, the app icon would be the logo, and it would convey the purpose of the app in an attractive and meaningful way.
    Icons and logos are worthless if they don’t convey information about the purpose and function of the thing they symbolize. What does the blue [Ps] icon say? It says that the letters “P” and “s” appear in the word Photoshop. That’s it. What does the blue gumdrop say? It says “P.” So that makes it half as effective as the icon.
    The sum of a meaningless icon plus a meaningless logo is not clarity. It is confusion.
    For Adobe’s next design experiment, may I suggest the image of a train wreck?

  173. The problem with many people is that we confuse the product with the branding. Whine all day long, but see if a friggin’ blue holed speech bubble will keep you from actually opening Ps.
    If the mark or icon actually stopped me from using the app that would be absolutely disastrous. I’m pretty sure I can comfortably use Photoshop AND complain about this crummy logo.
    Is your defense of this design that it’s at best irrelevant?

  175. Until now I always thought that Microsoft held the title of the King of Ugly for their icons for Office 2004. But step forward the new champion – Adobe has done the impossible, made Microsoft look stylish!

  176. The quill/feather from CS2 wasn’t a Branding Triumph or anything, but I thought it was pretty good.
    This new one is just bad. I’ve never seen any icon that screams “we got lazy and stole this” and “tries too hard” at the same time.

  180. Adding my voice to those who don’t really get this new logo. Maybe it could be enhanced using Adobe(R) Photoshop(R) software?

  181. The logo has the shape of the letter ‘P’, and is also a conversation bubble and an eye.
    But no, I don´t like it either.

  182. I get what the logo is trying to do but it misses the mark – and widely. The bubble is poorly executed and is very much early 2000s.
    I guess I just don’t understand Adobe’s need to basically re-brand Photoshop for every release. Are they that confident of user loyalty? This communicates that they aren’t humble or modest at all to me.

  183. That logo has Web 2.0 written all over it: it’s a round, shiny blue speech bubble, for crying out loud. WTF does it have to do with Photoshop–besides that, oh, it sort of resembles a ‘P’ if you look at it for a while.

  184. Good techniques, bad idea. Keep the simple Ps Fl Ai etc.
    [No one said that those were changing. The logo is meant to cover the whole Photoshop family of products. –J.]

  186. Truly awful.
    The same can be said for the whole “rebranding” affair. Like changing the name of “Lightroom” to “Photoshop Lightroom”. What’s wrong with simply calling it “Lightroom”? It is a different application to Photoshop, after all.
    I’ve loved Photoshop for a long time, but I really hate what Adobe is becoming – vapidly corporate, rather than smart and personal.

  187. Wow, so tallying up the comments we have a more than 99% negative response rate, with 1 commenter saying she likes it, and 2 people who neither like nor dislike it. Really, I think that says everything. When the CS3 icons were unveiled, there was an overwhelmingly negative response, but there were plenty of people here and elsewhere defending it. I hope Adobe’s paying attention to this…
    (For the record, I think it’s terrible)

  188. Oh my.
    Where’s the reflection? Where’s the lens flare? Fire that intern!
    I try to avoid posting “me too” type comments, but to all those who have trashed this already-dated, aqua-fied, web 2.0-ish, dumbed-down, consumer-pandering, steaming pile of Silverlight-ish marketing poop . . . me too.

  189. this logo shits all over the legacy of thomas + john knoll and the photoshop team. horrifically bland. please post the “just kidding” message now and show us the real logo 🙂
    [unless i missed an announcement? did microsoft take over creative direction at adobe?]

  190. All the trenchant commentary in the world on how bad this logo is is wasted on Adobe. A sales guy is in charge and marketing rules. The people in power don’t care about computers or design, what the sell are just widgets to them. To those people, this logo looks great. After all, it’s aqua! That’s cool right now, right? Plus, it looks like it must have been hard to do. Whoever did it must really know Photoshop! That’s their thought process.

  192. John, just so you know, got nothin’ but love for ya. I know the flamethrowers have been out on this one. Nothing personal, just a lot of people like myself unhappy with the sales/marketing direction of a product we know and love.

  193. The feather, I thought was the defining logo for Adobe. Why not keep it? This new one to me says blogs not image editing.

  194. Ever notice how angry designers tend to be? 😉
    My vote for the funniest comment so far:
    “I think I just threw up in my mouth. Gross! GEBUS Adobe, WTF were you thinking?”

  195. Christos Chiotis said:
    “If Photoshop is going to be an Instant Messenger then i think it looks ok.
    But hey, this is Photoshop, not a web2-ish application. It should stand at the top of the pile, and it doesn’t.
    Poor result”
    and i couldn’t agree more

  201. I can’t believe: I don’t like. No Adobe graphic line, a little bit Web 2.0 but bad idea.
    It seems like a Fake. I can´t understand… 🙁
    ¡No new logo please!

  202. Making the best image editing application on the planet and combining it with the worst possible logo is quite a feat. So I suppose we all should congratulate Adobe. Or something…
    At least it’s not the other way around — the worst application with the best logo — so probably we should be grateful.

  203. i think i threw up a little in my mouth. but then i examined my vomit more closely and was some kind of shiny, aqua colored goo… or was i looking at the logo again?

  205. Damn, that’s ugly.
    And for the guy who said: “Even if Adobe decides to recreate it’s logo (or branding, whatever you like to use), will that actually stop us from using it? Of course not.”
    You’re right, the reason I’m going to stop using Photoshop will probably have more to do with Core Image than with a logo. 🙂

  207. I still using CS2, and when I start the PS program than theres a feather. And I like that feather. And I think that feather with great colors should symbolize the PS. In the end I don’t really care what kind a logo PS owns.

  208. i consider this to be bad news, just like apple launching the iphone
    it might open the gates for mass marketing adobe products, but old professional users could feel threatened by this change

  212. It’s a travesty!
    This logo does not represent, at all, the class and sophistication of the application.

  213. I never posted on here before, but I just have to after seeing this logo. Plllllleaaaaaasssssseeeeeee tell me that is a joke? Come on John, use your power and make adobe change the logo. I personally liked the feather from cs2.

  214. What a non-logo, I don’t understand why a speech bubble is being used for image editing software. It tells me absolutely nothing about the product or Adobe.
    You should have stuck with the simple, clean and professional approach that you have so excellently achieved across the CS3 range.
    This logo actually makes me think “Microsoft” trying to make a Mac application rather than any Adobe product.

  215. Good lord that is freaking ugly. Why Adobe Why. Why do you have to take a product that is known and damage it’s reputation? I hope to god this is a joke….

  216. this new logo is undistinguished, all too common, and lame — it looks more like a logo for a cheap web 2.0 startup with no design experience

  218. @Matt Chaput
    I couldn’t have said it better myself, logo is horrible. The application is great though.

  219. Is Adobe that lost? Adobe seems to have forgotten the importance of branding. With CS1, they took a stab at a unified brand for all their products — a great step. But when with CS2 and CS3, they proceed to change it every time. With CS3, they made a bigger change, diving head-first into the “periodic table” branding. They seemed to be really diving into it, and, comments on the branding aside, you have to give it to them that it was at least unified.
    But now this?? Seperate branding for Photoshop? And terrible branding at that? Seriously, Adobe, is this a joke? I keep checking the calendar thinking it must be April 1, but it’s not! It’s bad enough to break Photoshop from the rest of the branding, but this? This pedestrian, design 101, meaningless, aqua-fied thought bubble? With an embarrassing, Microsoft-inspired tag-line?
    Adobe’s previous branding did indeed “tie the room together.” This tears it apart. If we’re discussing this in movie quotes, then I think Drexel’s line to Clarence is more appropriate: “You done fucked up again.”
    [I believe we thought it was White Boy Day… –J.]

  220. Well, Mr. John, I’ll admire you for taking the pins and barbs thrown at Adobe. Probably not necessarily the highlight of your day.
    [Ehm, yeah, not so much. 😉 –J.]
    Personally, don’t care too much one way or another about the aqua-type PS logo. However, the slogan sounds like a Microsoft catch-phrase. Meh. One of Apple’s current marketing phrases on it’s home page is simply ‘Meet the best iPods ever.’ Simple, straight to the point, and it doesn’t reek of heavy marketing spin. But then, would Apple advertise the latest line of iPods as the third best iPods ever?
    [I happen to really like the tagline: “Simple, straight to the point, and it doesn’t reek of heavy marketing spin.” I like “see” being a play on both visual perception & discovery. Of course, if Adobe had been the one to coin “Think Different,” a bunch of knuckle-dragging Digg kidds would have popped up to say, “LOLz ur grammer SUX!!” –J.]
    In regards to the new PS icon, at least it is no where as bad as the Windows XP “Playskool” interface. But then again, I haven’t liked a lot of the Adobe icons for about 5 years. We got used to seeing the eye and the Venus to represent PS and Illustrator, but when everything changed with the CS series, it really seemed to head south. How does a feather represent an image editing application? And what does a flower have to do with drawing? While I’m not real impressed with the CS3 icons, at least they are easier to identify. (However, I do love the shades of red in Adobe Reader 8). So, another logo, oh well. I think there are more serious problems than a logo. However, diluting the Photoshop brand with 31 different flavors also reeks of Microsoft. Don’t do it! Keep it simple.

  221. Wow, thats seriously ugly. And it looks like it was done in 5 minutes.
    Besides, whats the whole point of this? Didnt you just rebrand everything with the release of CS3? Sure, those logos got flak too but at least they’re better than this.
    Also, the tagline is really lame.

  222. wow, i’d call it awful, but that just doesn’t go far enough. the most accurate description i can think of includes words i don’t like to use.
    i think one reason for the strong reaction is that this is adobe we’re talking about. those of us who have been in design and visual arts for a long time have come to expect a lot from adobe. we expect you to set the standard. this has “follower” written all over it and looks like a logo for the sake of a logo.
    do you have a bunch of branding people sitting around with nothing to do? because the whole direction adobe has gone recently points to a serious loss of focus and a lack of attention to what makes sense to your customers. i should say i am really enjoying photoshop cs3, it’s a great improvement on a great app. but there was, once upon a time, a day when software companies made applications, gave them names that indicated their function, and sold them to people who wanted to use them. it was simple, people were happy. what adobe is doing now smacks of microsofting–the whole approach of segmenting one application into a family of applications.
    [Final Cut Pro, Final Cut Express, iMovie… –J.]
    now you have to choose from all the versions of photoshop, and if you want the whole suite you have to look at all the options and figure out which combination gives you what you need, maybe some of what you want, and hopefully doesn’t cost too much.
    do you know how maddening it is to look at the product grid for cs3 and figure out what you should get? why can’t we just get photoshop? one photoshop, with all the cool stuff you guys come up with and can manage to include.
    [You can. –J.]
    and if we need more than one application sell us a bundle at a discount. apple gets this.
    [No they do *not*. Apple is a great company that gets a lot of things right, but I’m sick of knee-jerk assumptions that they do no wrong. You can’t even buy apps like Motion on their own. Rather, you *have* to buy Final Cut Studio. That’s *not* true with Adobe applications, which you can buy individually or in a variety of Suite configurations. (And if you’re pissed that there are too many Suites to choose from, let me introduce you to people who say there are too few, that they want some config that doesn’t exist. Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t–but double damned if your marketing pales in comparison to Apple’s (which Adobe’s obviously does, and always has). –J.]
    many companies do. it should be simple, simple is good, people like simple.
    anyway, that’s a bit off-topic, but it goes to this whole thing you’re doing with photoshop as a brand instead of an app. it’s not simple. adobe is the company. photoshop is the product. is there something wrong with that? let lightroom be lightroom. let photoshop have it’s icon. stop trying to confuse us in the hopes that we’ll just spend money out of our confusion, or something. enough already.
    oh, and again, this logo is awful. adobe can do so much better. thanks for sharing.
    [Yes, Adobe can do much better. That’s about all I can say. Anyway, there’s a reason I do this blog. –J.]

  224. I thought the icon used for the application… the one with the eyeball… was perfectly fine. It’s indicated imagery and photography to me for well over a decade.

  225. sorry, but the logo doesn´t represent the professionality of photoshop. it´s just another 2.0-bubblegum-glossy-shiny-blingbling-logo. (you´d better use the Ps-icon as the “new” logo)
    bye

  226. What an awful design choice.
    You’re telling me that you want to take one of the most powerful brands in the history of software and saddle it with a logo that’ll be relevant for all of five minutes?
    You get that your market is creative people, right? You’re not going to impress them by giving them something that looks this passe right off the bat.

  227. A lot of people are pissed at this logo, and I think you at Adobe should take it as a compliment (to an extent).
    [I do. –J.]
    People are mad because these people love Photoshop so much and don’t want to see it changed in a way they dislike.
    In my opinion, the logo is mediocre. I don’t find it hideous and ugly, like some do, but I find its symbolism lacking. It has taken on the appearance of a talk bubble, which doesn’t make sense considering the intent of the Photoshop applications. With Photoshop, one edits images. This is the primary purpose of Photoshop, and it is a purpose which should be reflected in its logo.
    With that said, I understand the intention here. Since Photoshop is apparently being opened up to the casual image editor (think college students or moms who want to edit their photos but lack professional skills), I get that the logo/icon needs to be more market-friendly. I imagine Photoshop Express is being created to regain marketshare from Apple’s iPhoto application, but this is only speculation. I can expect, though, that this move was well thought-out and will result in a more attractive package for the casual user.
    But for the professional designers and photographers who use THE Photoshop on a daily basis, this logo is an insult. May I suggest making Photoshop proper retain its original logo/icon (the original CS3 icon, that is)?
    [The CS3 application icon ISN’T A LOGO and ISN’T CHANGING. Sorry to yell. I’m tired of having to make this point over and over and over. –J.]

  230. Sweet Baby Jesus. What are you thinking Adobe?
    Please don’t make the same mistake Quark did. Remember that? Remember that you laughed at them for their crappy logo? Guess who’s laughing now?
    Certainly, somebody in your company has to know that this new design is poop. Seriously, come down off your ivory tower, get out of your own way, and attempt to have a conversation with us — your customer! Listen to what we’re saying.

  233. >[Well, having absorbed some 500 comments on that subject, almost all of which were aggressively negative, I do find it a little funny that A) almost no one seems to have a problem with the icons now that they’ve used them & seen the full CS3 branding, >
    I don’t have a problem with those lousy icons because I replaced every single one of them within 30 minutes of installing CS3 so no longer have to endure them. And the hideous and flimsy box went straight into the Trash Masher
    John:
    What we care about is having efficient and serviceable software that does what we bought it to do including being able to produce consistently color-managed prints.
    Your team has wasted time on producing an infuriating new interface; a broken Printing engine; the worst icons and packaging in the industry — and capped it off with this laughable new Logo.
    PLEASE would you get a grip on the important matters which need to be urgently addressed; replace your current team with people who are capable of doing what is actually required; and stop wasting time and resources on ephemeral rubbish which is only serving to destroy the excellent reputation of Adobe software.
    You may think that this is harsh but it is now five months since the badly-flawed CS3 Suite was launched and it seems that NOTHING has yet been done to fix the mess.
    Instead, all that we get offered is this pathetic limpid jellied wimp of a Logo?

  234. [The CS3 application icon ISN’T A LOGO and ISN’T CHANGING. Sorry to yell. I’m tired of having to make this point over and over and over. –J.]
    It may not be a proper logo used on all packaging and marketing collateral, but it is a symbol which we associate with the product as it represents Photoshop just like the orange jack represented Cingular.
    A lot of overzealous marketers will tell you that it’s not a logo, and they may have done just that. But in actuality, a logo is nothing but a symbol or icon which the public associates with a company or product. Since we all have begun associating the blue PS in a box with Photoshop (just like we do the gold Ai in a box with Illustrator) it’s as much a logo as anything else.
    You can try to convince people that the blue PS isn’t a logo all day long, but you’ll soon run out of steam. It’s the association that matters, not the image being associated. For example, the Verizon red V/check symbol is freaking hideous and should be an embarrassment to Landor, but it has such equity in it that no matter how bad or stupid we think it is, it is still our visual connection to Verizon. The same is true for your little blue PS box. It’s our visual link to the product.
    [That’s all true, Ryan. The point here, though–perhaps obscured by my choice of title for this post–was to devise a graphic that works for all the applications in the Photoshop family, not just for Photoshop CS3. –J.]

  235. “[No they do *not*. Apple is a great company that gets a lot of things right, but I’m sick of knee-jerk assumptions that they do no wrong. You can’t even buy apps like Motion on their own. Rather, you *have* to buy Final Cut Studio. –J.]”
    Excellent point. My company needed to purchase Final Cut Pro since Final Cut Express wasn’t cutting it for our needs. But guess what — you need to buy the entire studio to get FCP, which is NOT a cheap application. $1299 USD. And I shudder to think what that might cost outside the U.S.
    I think some of the irritation with throwing around the Photoshop name is by trying to take a well known brand and attach it to other products, whether they need it or not. I felt Lightroom was a perfectly fine name, it didn’t need to become Photoshop Lightroom.
    Or maybe the current trend these days is to have software names that will take your breath away (literally).
    Which version of Windows do YOU have?
    I have MicrosoftWindowsVistaHomePremiumNForSwissGoatHerdersWhoSpeakFrench .
    […HumanEarEdition. 😉 Yeah, I hear you. –J.]

  237. [That’s all true, Ryan. The point here, though–perhaps obscured by my choice of title for this post–was to devise a graphic that works for all the applications in the Photoshop family, not just for Photoshop CS3. –J.]
    I see.

  238. [quote]>>The point here, though–perhaps obscured by my choice of title for this post–was to devise a graphic that works for all the applications in the Photoshop family, not just for Photoshop CS3.>>[/quote]
    But that is exactly what you should NOT be doing.
    There is already far too much confusion by users of Elements who assume that they are using the REAL Photoshop.
    [Really? Where? You must know a lot of users I don’t. –J.]
    What you need to do is to [i]differentiate[/i] clearly between these imaging products — not blur the distinction even further.
    In fact it would be much better if you removed the word “Photoshop” entirely from both “Elements” and your “Express”.
    People who buy those products should not be misled into thinking that they are getting the Real McCoy.
    [Well, they *are* getting the Real McCoy in terms of core imaging technology. The name Photoshop stands for a lot in that department, and there’s a lot of shared imaging code amongst the apps. –J.][Oh, that’s us, Ann–trying to get all the stupid sheep to think that $70=$700. Busted!! Oh, the humanity. Gimme a break… –J.]

  239. >>There is already far too much confusion by users of Elements who assume that they are using the REAL Photoshop.
    [Really? Where? You must know a lot of users I don’t. –J.]>>
    Try looking-in on the Photoshop Forums a sometimes. There are frequently postings by Elements users who don’t realise that Photoshop and Elements are NOT the same thing.
    And I do find the idea of attempting to use the honoured name of the highly-esteemed “Photoshop” to market inferior programs to be lacking in integrity and to be uncomfortably close to “bait-and-switch” selling.
    [Arguing with you is pointless. –J.]

  240. Sorry, it’s pretty awful, bring me back my feathers if this is my new choice, or maybe just a feather, I dunno, even the color boxes are better than this…

  241. I don’t consider that we are “arguing”.
    I would have hoped that we were having a sensible Discussion which might cause you to re-think the errors of the ways in which Adobe’s marketing is now heading.
    It may not be what you want to hear, but I feel strongly that Adobe’s present course is not only wrong but is also displaying a lack of taste, wise judgement and integrity.
    And for heaven’s sake please stop wasting time and resources on useless ephemera (like this pathetic Logo!) and fix the CS3 printing fiasco without further delay.

  242. Sorry John, and Adobe, but I, too, just plain don’t like the aqua bubble thing.
    I personally don’t see a reason to give the Photoshop “family” a logo. The Adobe logo is recognized worldwide (PLEASE don’t change the white A in a red field!) and the individual product icons work quite elegantly, in my opinion. I haven’t looked at all recent Adobe product releases, but I’m hoping the BigLetter/SmallLetter theme is carried across all products so that we see the Ps, Lr, Dw, etc. and maybe Pse for Elements, Psx for Extended, and so forth. That theme is working, at least for me.
    Ok, that’s my 2 cents (1 cent after taxes)…

  243. Reading through these posts reminds me of a cliched joke
    ‘How many graphic designers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Any number really, one will do the work and the rest will stand around saying I could’ve done a better job.’

  248. With this much public outcry over this new logo I wonder how long it will take Adobe to either release a statement explaining/defending the decision or removing the almost offensive logo and go back to the way things were.

  249. Don’t like, not needed. Why go through the expense of rebranding something that doesn’t need branding. Makes it look weak, like a freebie you download from the net.

  250. “Without aesthetic, design is either the humdrum repetition of familiar cliches or a wild scramble for novelty. Without the aesthetic, the computer is but a mindless speed machine, producing effects without substance. Form without relevant content, or content without meaningful form.”
    Paul Rand

  251. errr… this is a joke right? it looks like a crappy IM client icon or something…
    i mean, most $5+ osx apps at least have better icons, even more free osx apps have better looking icons… lol
    not to mention they also convey better what the app does that this… personally, i really like the current blue square with “Ps” in the middle, just leave that, or come up with something better, and please, not something based on a “paint”-anything, cause the program is called Photoshop, not Paintshop… 😛

  252. Really? Where? You must know a lot of users I don’t. –J.]
    John, FWIW, I’ve dealt with several people who say they have “Photoshop” when I know they have Elements. From a marketing perspective, that’s a laudable achievement — people see the word “Photoshop” all over the place, so they buy “Photoshop” (for $38) to join the party. So Adobe cashes in on the brand, fair enough. But surely you can recognize a disadvantage or two with that approach?
    [If there’s a disadvantage, I think it’s to Adobe, in that we’re selling a $600 one. Somehow I don’t think that giving people that option constitutes corporate malfeasance. –J.]

  253. These were the first 3 things that popped into my head when I saw the logo:
    – obese
    – the text is missing in the bubble, maybe it fell out because of the hole
    – Quark
    I think the last one is the worst.

  255. Of course, if Adobe had been the one to coin “Think Different,” a bunch of knuckle-dragging Digg kidds would have popped up to say, “LOLz ur grammer SUX!!
    Isn’t that exactly what happened to Apple? I don’t see what difference it would have made if it were Adobe. Apple copped a LOT of flak for the “Think Different” slogan. Knuckle-dragging Digg kids constantly derided it.
    It sounds like you have some kind of chip on your shoulder for Apple, or some kind of persecution complex about Adobe.
    [Probably so. I seem to need to go through life with beefs about things & chips on my shoulder. –J.]
    I really don’t get it, because Adobe gets a heap of respect – even when it doesn really stupid things. People go easy on Adobe and forgive sins, because Photoshop is so legendary. In contrast, Apple gets hounded and harassed in the media over total non-issues. Think “non-removable iPod battery” for example.
    Adobe does some really bad things – the new multi-tiered, over-priced suites for example – but we keep putting up with it, and remain relatively civil.

  256. But guess what — you need to buy the entire studio to get FCP, which is NOT a cheap application. $1299 USD. And I shudder to think what that might cost outside the U.S.
    It’s cheaper than the Adobe applications, that’s for sure. And Apple do a very decent educational discount without requiring a volume order or site-wide contract.
    In contrast, the cost of Adobe applications for educational institutions has just skyrocketed with CS3.
    I don’t know how Final Cut Studio can be considered “expensive” – it costs a fraction of what some of its competitors charge. For what it does, it’s very good value for money.
    The Adobe applications cost as much, but aside from Photoshop, you don’t get a lot for your money. And Lightroom doesn’t even come in the suites!

  257. my advice is:
    just-hire-a-real-professional-logotype-designer-to-make-a-good-logo
    a little visist on logopound’s featured gallery may give you some ideas of who

  260. The “corporate malfeasance” part stems from Adobe’s intention of using the name and reputation of a well established, and highly respected, application to sell different, and inferior, products.
    [Inferior to what? Microsoft, which bailed out on the market–again? Corel, which continues its implosion? I suppose that pointing out the success of Elements against any and all comers will just “prove” your point that Adobe is that shady, that treacherous. You really give consumers no credit whatsoever. –J.]
    Sorry, but this marketing plan smells like the tactics that we might expect from a disreputable second-hand car dealer.

  262. ROTFL!!! Silly web2.0 shit feeling, but it’s about the worst.
    See what’s possible? A better logo, maybe… This sucks!

  263. And if you’re pissed that there are too many Suites to choose from, let me introduce you to people who say there are too few, that they want some config that doesn’t exist.
    The only reason this is an issue is that the prices have gone up so much. If you offered them at a better price (like you used to) everybody with more than basic needs could just buy the “Master Collection” without worrying about “wasted money”.
    But Adobe is trying to squeeze every dollar out of every user, and that’s the reason why some people complain about not having a specific bundle available. They’re getting gouged if they buy what they want individually, and they’re getting gouged if they buy a suite.
    Before CS3, our institution would have simply installed Creative Suite on all our students’ editing machines – just to give them Photoshop or Illustrator for occasional usage.
    Now that’s not financially viable. Instead they’ll get something like Graphic Converter, or one of the new/upcoming Core-Image-based editors like Pixelmator.
    One of the ways that Adobe grew so large was people trying the software in school or university, and then becoming a full customer in later professional life. But Adobe is closing the door to that kind of thing. More and more students will be exposed to software other than Photoshop.

  264. That is really ugly. Why on earth would you try and design something that looks like every other terrible web 2.0 logo out there?
    It’s REALLY fugly!

  265. Oh my god. Thought it was a joke from a design blog. Now i’m discovering that it’s official!!
    90′ are not too far enought to make a revival…

  266. Hmm.
    No doubt the logo is horrible.
    But what surprises me more is the general brand confusion that Adobe has created but apparently are not willing to realize.So it’s PS “family” now, different icons/logos all over the place, confusing product names etc. What about brand consistency ?
    [It’s been a Photoshop family for more than 10 years. Photoshop LE was shipping in the mid-90’s, and Elements appeared in 2002 or thereabouts. The difference now is that we aim to serve quite a few more customers, in more diverse markets, so the family has grown accordingly. –J.]
    As for “The CS3 application icon ISN’T A LOGO and ISN’T CHANGING. Sorry to yell. I’m tired of having to make this point over and over and over.”:
    Well, having to yell and being tired of having to explain the icon/logo difference “over and over” might indeed be indicating a brand confusion problem.
    [Maybe, or maybe I/we just don’t explain things well. –J.]
    Because with a consistent brand architecture/system/identity there’s no need to yell and explain. Actually, any identity system that needs explanation over and over again means just one thing: mission failed.
    [What would you do instead? –J.]
    Maybe you should think about the idea that it might not be the stupid customers or commenters here that “just don’t get it” but that Adobe don’t get it that they have started a brand confusion desaster.
    It should always ring an alarm bell when company managers start to blaim the public/customers for “not getting it”.
    [I didn’t blame anyone. I am, however, frustrated that many people clearly didn’t take 30 seconds to read the blog post before commenting. Even so, maybe I could have done a better job explaining things. –J.]

  267. I thought it was a student project too! Seems a bit amateurish. Its not exactly inline with what Adobe has been going with recently… The blue box with “PS” makes more sense than this new logo.

  268. On the interpretation of the object: I see a P (as in Photoshop), a thought bubble, and a pallet (the hole). Alas, I just don’t like it.

  269. DON’T DO IT. BAD BRANDING!!!!!!!! The 3D aqua stuff is so chiche by now… really bad. the periodic table is awesome, stands out. no need for a PowerPoint look-alike.

  270. It Sucks 🙁
    A picture is worth million words. The logo shows the opposite. When I saw 1st time the logo I was thinking on: Bla… Bla… Bla…

  271. I wasn’t aware Photoshop was a second rate web application with trademark paranoia (seriously, on every frigging element in the design? What the hell?). I didn’t clock it was a P until I read the comments either. The CS3 icons really made sense, given the breadth of Adobe’s products now but this? This looks like the ugly public face of some kind of internal power struggle in the marketing department.

  274. [I didn’t blame anyone. I am, however, frustrated that many people clearly didn’t take 30 seconds to read the blog post before commenting. Even so, maybe I could have done a better job explaining things. –J.]
    Yep. You’re totally missing the point alright. I did read your blog (several blogs, in fact). You should NOT have to explain anything to the consumer.
    Look, you’re completely wrong about the icons. IF they were simply icons, why does Adobe use them to identify and market the product(s) on it’s own HOME PAGE? I’ll tell you why… because to the consumer, they’re LOGOS!

  277. You can’t remember it, you can’t explain it, it’s horrible. Simple.
    PS: The icons are stupid, too, but it’s easy to change them if you really want. The Blue Logo of Crap is there to stay, I’m affraid! 🙁

  280. My first thought looking at this was. Yuck!! It is really cartoonish and as so many people have it does seem to fit the product.
    I’m a Graphic Design student and just about anyone in my Adobe Illustrator class could do better than this.

  281. Reminds me on Google Talk… As it has a bubble. (Yes, that is a bubble, no matter what it’s meant to be.)

  282. What year are we in? I didn’t know we regressed back to 2001 when the Aqua style was hip. Even now Apple, highly intuitve designers that they are, is going away from the aqua. Smart choice for Apple, really bad choice for Adobe. Oh and by the the Logo Really SUCKS!! BAD…

  283. John,
    I posted something about the “branding” issue a long while back but never really got much response.
    I am curious about Adobe’s approach to “extending” the Photoshop brand. My opinion is that you have risked dilution of the Photoshop brand and you have caused consumer confusion (Regular PS, PS Elements, PS Lightroom, PS Web-whatever it’s clalled).
    I read your explanation that you are using the brand to meet many customer needs at many different levels. Throughout this process has Adobe ever had any serious discussions about brand dilution? To me Photoshop has always meant powerful, professional image editing. I don’t really understand what it means any more. Has this discussion every come up at Adobe?
    I don’t want to come across as one of the many bitter mean-spirited posters here – but speaking from the heart… for many years Adobe Marketing was the model that I admired and struggled emulate in many of the things I did. Over the last few years – I just feel like that magic has really been lost.
    Photoshop user since version 4.0. Adobe Certified Expert and I used to have personal relationships with a few Adobe Canadian employees (who have since moved on). I feel I know the company, the products and that I am the “target” customer.
    I would love a deeper explanation about these things. Perhaps a blog post? 😉
    [Good suggestions, Mike.
    Broadly speaking, and with exceptions here and there, I think Adobe marketing has *always* sucked. I mean, while Macromedia was rocking out with Flash and Dreamweaver, they were buying LiveMotion a two-page spread in Wired that depicted a guy snowboarding down a volcano–I’m sure because “that’s what the kids like these days.” It’s an engineering-driven company, and I’ve seen plenty of cringe-inducing Adobe marketing over the years. (I have special dispensation to rag on us about these things because I actually work in Adobe Marketing(tm).)
    Anyway, I’ll see whether someone in the know might want to write something about the rationale behind creating the “Photoshop Family.” –J.]

  284. what’s wrong with the current PS logo? There’s no need to jump on the “web 2.0 look” bandwagon.
    [The blue square isn’t a logo; it’s the product icon for Photoshop CS3. The thing being discussed here is a logo meant to encompass the whole Photoshop family of products. –J.]

  285. It seems apparent from the comments that the need for a unifying logo within the Photoshop family is confusing. Perhaps because the concept of a “Photoshop family of products” doesn’t necessarily apply to people outside of Adobe.
    Users of Photoshop products will only use the single Photoshop product that is right for them (or possibly two in the case of Photoshop Lightroom for photographers) . As a Photoshop Extended user, I have no need for Photoshop (regular), Photoshop Elements and probably Photoshop Express.
    Now the CS3 suite is a true family of products that makes sense on a consumer level.

  286. I think everyone needs to lighten up a bit. Sure, the speech bubble is just plain stupid, and the tagline makes no sense. The new logo is ugly. It’s an ugly mess that makes a poor attempt to bring together the Photoshop family of products.
    But, bringing the brand together is an important task. It is not deceptive to put the Photoshop name on all the Photoshop products. I don’t really get the need to offer an Extended version when it would just do to make one CS3 version, but as far as Elements, etc., keeping the Photoshop name is a good thing.
    Also, John didn’t design the logo and didn’t make the decision to use it. And from his comments, it’s evident that he probably doesn’t really like the new logo. But I see the strategy behind it, and I think it’s a good idea.
    As for the CS3 icons based on the Periodic table, I think I like them. Some complain that they’re not accessible (color blind, etc.) but if you can read, it’s not a problem. They’re kind of a take on the Macromedia logos, and the consitency is good.
    Final count: Photoshop Logo and Branding: -1. CS3 logos: +1. Ha, I’ll stop now.

  287. The very fact that you have to “explain” what you are doing should be sufficient to alert you to the fact that the project is a failure.
    Do you really want to promote the idea that Photoshop is “going down the toilet” because that logo looks like nothing more than a lavatory seat — complete with a projecting handle for flushing it.
    [Ann, you sound like a lovely, cheerful, deeply fulfilled woman. Thanks for sharing more sunshine with everyone. –J.]

  288. Wow, that truely looks cheap. Sorry, but that new logo degrades that mighty piece of software photoshop is.

  290. I respect everyone’s opinion of the logo. However will this affect what you can do with photoshop?
    The logo may have changed but as long as photoshop is still the package we all love so dearly I know that a new logo really isn’t going to spoil the overall experience for me.
    If you feel that strongly about it, design a new logo and send it to Adobe. Most of you are exceptionally talented designers – show Adobe that a logo influenced by the boring old Apple bubble graphics is – for a lack of better words – passe.
    cheers,
    erik

  292. I like it overall. Better than the current set and very “Web 2.o” (which has to mean its super cool right?) Still its a little glossy for my taste. The idea of the thought bubble & merging of a abstract camera & the letter P are fairly clever & the best & closest thing I’ve seen to a halfway decent logo from Adobe for a while. Nice start Adobe.

  293. I (meaning we) recognize that the blue square is intended to represent only the Photoshop CS3 application, but the thing is, if you need a variety of different logos to represent the Photoshop brand at various levels (individual application, family, etc), something’s wrong, because the need to introduce such confusion shouldn’t be there in the first place. Your argument that the different Photoshop products share a common code base is valid, but doesn’t take into account that most customers, at any skill level, don’t care about the underlying code — only what the software does and how well it does it.
    (I’m reminded of several years ago when my father, in the course of some image-editing-related discussion, told me he had Photoshop — and therefore should be able to do things I was describing — when, in fact, he had an OEM CD of PhotoDeluxe that came with our computer. Such is the computer-savvy nature of many non-professional customers who now buy Photoshop Elements.)
    True, the Photoshop family all deal with images, but if that’s the case, why not rename Illustrator to Photoshop Illustrator? Because they’re still different products for somewhat different purposes. By extension, apps like Lightroom and Photoshop Elements also differ in function from the full-fledged professional version of Photoshop, even if not drastically.
    I hate to bring up Apple as they’ve been waved around this whole time, but the marketing for their software products almost always features the icon of the app in question — almost as if it were a logo, because it essentially is. If it’s sold in a box, and the box design is different, it’s not because there’s a whole different logo on it; it’s because they’ve chosen to show images that express what it does (take the content examples of iWork or the piano keys of Logic Studio). I’m not suggesting that Adobe imitate Apple’s packaging design, but rather that you use only one logo to represent Photoshop. If the multitude of Photoshop products is confusing as a result of not having an additional logo tying them together, perhaps it’s because too many products are trying to cram themselves into the Photoshop brand.
    Barring a complete overhaul of your product line, perhaps using variations on the same theme would serve to tie the products together, such as changing the shape from a square to a circle (representing a globe) for Photoshop Express and a “fun”, slightly glossy picture-frame shape for the consumer-oriented Photoshop Elements. All with the same “Ps” and blue hue, all recognizable as Photoshop products. One thing is certain, though: almost anything would serve the Photoshop brand better than the currently proposed logo-and-tagline abomination, as long as it involved some common sense this time around. I wish you the best of luck.
    [Thanks for the thoughtful feedback, Mike. –J.]

  294. Puaaajjj!…, this logo has nothing of the previous ones, it´s not consistent at all with all the other ones from Adobe, why they need to make such a difference?, it´s obvious they have something in mind because i don´t see the point on changing the logo so soon, i presume they want to separate Photoshop from all the other Adobe products creating a new family.

  296. Another trendy, boring, predictable and no original at all, speech-bubble-like logo. For a product with the history of Photoshop, this is a joke.

  299. Not a fan. The CS3 logos are timeless, even if a bit cliche. They work well as a system. This looks like a frilly web 2.0 social network logo.

  302. Thumbs down to the new logo but the type is fine. Photoshop is such a titan you would think that Adobe could spare the extra bucks and hire a good firm to do their logos and icons.
    Of course I will still use Photoshop and so will everyone else because it’s great! It just bugs me when the small details like logos and icons are so lackluster. I also agree with what Mark Eagleton posted.
    I’d have to agree that Photoshop deserves better. Thanks for turning out a great product, we know you’re not the one marketing it.

  303. WOW! Piss poor. I wonder if there is still time to stop this? I would like a hack at creating a logo for Photoshop! Surely a contest to design Photoshop’s logo would really spark some interest. I know I could do better than that PBS re-hash they are considering now! I preferred the periodic table stuff to this. HOLD A CONTEST!!!!!

  305. Photoshop is inspirational. This logo/icon is utterly not. Design can be inspirational and design can be demoralizing. This is demoralizing. You could have done so much better… Have a user contest next time…please!

  306. From the looks of it, The logo is suposed to be a giant P, hence for PhotoShoP. anyway, it will look kinda odd seeing a logo like that for photoshop, at least they didnt make it a buch of brushes sticking out of a can

  307. Well, from a marketer’s standpoint, this is about as emphatic a survey response as you could want, albeit only from people already fans of Photoshop. I have to comment that the tagline says nothing.
    This follows a current fad –er, trend– in corporate branding. It has so far produced entirely negative results in terms of sales, but that minor detail seldom worries Mad. Ave.
    [Oh, I dunno: sales are fine. But here’s the thing, as many others have pointed out: the marketing squad could select a bag of burning cat turds to be the Photoshop family logo, and yet it wouldn’t affect one jot of what Photoshop actually is. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like to be represented by an image that people find sleek and inspirational, but unlike industries where there’s maybe very little actually differentiating a brand (e.g. dish soap), there’s plenty more goodness in Photoshop than can be obscured by a logo. –J.]

  310. The first time I saw this (elsewhere) I thought it was a joke. Once I came here, I thought it looks a lot like the PBS logo. Or perhaps a speech bubble as an icon for commenting.
    I think the feathers and whatnot of the previous Photoshop logos were much better–they showed off what Photoshop could do.
    Oh, and that silly slogan? How Microsoft-y.

  312. I’ve used cs2 since it came out and ps7 and cs2 by far had the best logos.
    When cs3 came out it was so generic and now its getting worse.

  313. John, can you tell us if any other Adobe apps are going to get logos?
    It does seem quite odd that Photoshop would be singled out as the only core product to get a graphic mark (aside from Acrobat, which is sort of a special case).
    Actually there’s that dichotomy again… Acrobat, having the special distinction of a logo, has an icon bearing its logo. Will Photoshop’s logo become its icon in the same vein?
    [Clay: AFAIK, it’s only the Photoshop family that’s due to get its own logo. Maybe the Acrobat case is analogous, in that a whole family of apps lives under that umbrella. Again, to clarify, the Photoshop CS3 “logo” (icon) isn’t changing, nor is any other product icon that I know of. The goal here was to create a visual mark that could apply to Photoshop-related technologies, products, and services. –J.]

  314. I just read through all those comments. Damn… tough crowd! Hope you had your flame proof suit on John.
    I’m not crazy about this logo either.

  315. If the logo could stand for itself it hadn’t needed an explanation to go with it. I don’t care what it looks like, the main problem is that it doesn’t even WORK! Seriously, who made it? The boss’s nephew?

  316. Actually, I think Adobe may have done a “Consignia” in this case. Just without a silly name change to go with it. But how about it? Why don’t we change Photoshop to something more “creative”. Creapixila? Visiodoo? Pixypoo? Sounds fine to me, and something like that would constitute an obvious naming parallel to this atrocity of a “logo”.

  317. Oh no!!! please, this is a gag right?
    After using my beloved PS since its very birth, I must say this 2.0 silliness is just that.
    Sorry Adobe, but you’ve dropped the ball on this one, and you guys normally carry it so well.
    Thumbs down from Australia… 🙁

  319. It wouldn’t suck quite as bad to me except for the fact that it instantly looks like Microsoft’s branding design. And at a time when the companies are preparing to try to eat each others lunch, that just doesn’t make sense.

  322. I’m really confused by this. From a company like Adobe, I would expect a lot more thought put into a logo (that is to be the face of a huge rebranding project). The number of responses to this post all saying about the same thing is a pretty strong testament to the general consensus: the new logo, in no way, expresses what Photoshop is about. (Plus it’s as ugly as sin).
    Isn’t there some sort of quality control, so when some designer brings this to the table someone can say, “Uh.. nope, try again.”?
    [Whether you like the logo or not (and clearly most people do not), it is the product of considerable time and effort. I’m working to get the designers responsible for it to show the steps that brought us to this point. –J.]

  324. The PSD brand icon by itself is Ok (firmly planted in the 90s though, visually speaking). What I do not see how this can be consolidated and seen on the same page with the general Adobe branding, and specifically with the new CS3 appearance (not just the icons). The Acrobat family is a good showcase (Flash is another one) for sub brand families but both are rather simple graphics that integrate well with the flat graphics that span all of CS3.

  325. Good design is when people look at it, and they just say “that’s it”.
    Good design is when people look at it, and they feel something positive resonating within them. It speaks to them in a very positive… but un-spoken way. Only good design can do that.
    Every single person I’ve asked at Adobe (and I know a few), has said pretty much the same thing as the folks commenting here on John’s blog. “I don’t get it.” Every single one.
    When a company does something like the Kinko’s link in Acrobat Reader, a few industry partners shout, and Adobe does the right thing, and changes it.
    When a company does something like the new Photoshop brand icon, the whole world shouts, “IT’S WRONG”.
    What do you do?
    The people have spoken. Adobe MUST stand for good design. It’s just as imperative as building the best products.
    I think you should bite the bullet, and change it.

  326. > it is the product of considerable time and effort.>
    That underlines the futility of this whole re-branding nonsense.
    “Adobe” and the big red “A” is your Brand and your logo. Highly esteemed and recognized by everyone around the globe, anything else is superfluous and just weakens the strength of the Brand.
    And the time, effort and money that are be being wasted on designing something as pathetic and unnecessary as this down-the-loo Logo, would be much better spent on fixing the flaws in CS3 — such as the Printing Fiasco (which you seem to be doing your best to sweep under the rug?).
    [I have already mentioned to you–repeatedly–that we are working on the problems regarding printing. –J.]

  330. Yuck. Looks like glossy, jelly Web 2.0 spew that became a design cliché two years ago. Not to mention joining it with a bland sans-serif type treatment that is yet again a derivative of Apple, and a reflection of a supreme lack of imagination. Please bring back the eyeball we know and love, and admit that this was a mistake.

  332. I still can’t get over how bad this is. I would have thought Adobe would be above all the gimmickyness. If they were going to jump on the bandwagon, why not do it when it was a somewhat new idea some years ago?

  334. This is a lousy Mac/Microsoft/PBS/E.T. head/IM Chat/reamed with a punch fly-by-night mashup that’s been trademarked, restricted, copyrighted and turned into a horrible visual abomination.
    How about extending the massive periodic table rebranding effort to actually lend some basis for a family of products? Something molecular, atomic, compound, chemistry-related? Something that at least looks like it’s AdobeMedia and not some web2.0 upstart with about 3 months of angel dollars left?

  335. It would be interesting to know the reaction of the designers of this logo when they read this blog.
    Are they surprised by the near universal negative reaction?
    Are they not surprised?
    Do they consider the population of PS users that typically comment here as uninformed or unenlightened?
    Do they test these things out on actual users?
    If so, do the opinions expressed here differ dramatically from their test group of PS users?
    If yes, then I wonder why?

  336. Hmmm … I have something similar in my kitchen drawer I use to open up bottles of beer.
    TBH, the design industry is ‘top-heavy’ with so called designers who believe design is more about how well / fast you can use design using software tools rather than how well you can come up with ideas and concepts. So in that respect, I guess the logo is a good reflection of the majority that use the Photoshop product.
    Not dissing PS in anyway – great tool – more so ‘the industry’: “Wow! That guy produced a visually nice looking but ultimately shallow and unoriginal piece of digital artwork really quickly using keyboard short-cuts to add effects. Let’s give him / her a pay rise …”
    Yer get Meh?

  337. John said: [Whether you like the logo or not (and clearly most people do not), it is the product of considerable time and effort. I’m working to get the designers responsible for it to show the steps that brought us to this point.] and also […But here’s the thing, as many others have pointed out: the marketing squad could select a bag of burning cat turds to be the Photoshop family logo, and yet it wouldn’t affect one jot of what Photoshop actually is. …]
    Ok, so this logo:
    1) Is the product of considerable time and effort
    2) Will, in the end, not effect the nature and capability of the product
    How is this in any way unique to this case? Unless you went to Logoworks, of course you spent time and effort putting this together, that doesn’t mean critiquing is invalid! Also, branding never changes the very core of the what is offered, but merely describes it in a new way.
    This post is about the new logo. The periodic table “icons” / “branding” aside, if we assess the logo on 2 goals:
    1) Does it communicate the tag-line “See what’s possible”?
    2) Do the existing user base of creative professionals find it speaks to them?
    We get the answers:
    1) Derivative, mediocre, uninspired, meaningless things are possible.
    2) “Clearly most people do not”

  338. I don’t know but to me the logo looks like a speech bubble and on first look without the word “photoshop” next to the logo I would think it belonged to an instant messaging app.

  339. a couple of things:
    * brands communicate subconciously, not by requiring analysis.
    [Well, yes, but I’d suggest that many (most?) logos are meaningless until they’re repeatedly associated with actions & values. What is the Nike swoosh, anyway? If it were used by the Nazis while the swastika were used by Nike, we’d all have very different reactions to those symbols. Yes, a symbol should be visually pleasing (or at least memorable), but unless it’s a very literal pictogram, the whole subconscious thing is a product of time & association. –J.]
    Unique case here with Photoshop users also working in the visual design realm feeling entitled to be brand experts.
    * I would suspect a large majority of people outside this list fall under “subconcious” they simply wouldn’t care on a concious level.
    * Only Adobe really knows what’s in store for Photoshop and related products, will it be sub-brand including products that do not today fall under the photoshop moniker, will it be a spinoff maybe not even used with “Adobe”, a lot of things are possible down the line with more and more products at Adobe no longer having to do with creative imaging. Maybe the Adobe brand has gotten too overloaded for the audience to really remember all it stands for.
    [Adobe is one of the most diverse software companies I know of, operating in the enterprise (Acrobat, Live Cycle), among consumers (Flash, Reader, PDF, PostScript), creative pros (Photoshop, Suites, etc.), and more. I imagine the meaning of the Big Red A differs considerably among those groups, as they experience the company’s products in very different ways. Therefore I think it’s quite appropriate that there be sub-brands under the Adobe umbrella. –J.]

  341. I have no idea, what this logo has to do with the Photoshop stuff.
    It doesn’t say anything to me. Nothing meanfull. Nothing remeberfull.
    I don’t like it.

  343. Whoever John is
    [ ? … –J.]
    he supposedly said: […as many others have pointed out: the marketing squad could select a bag of burning cat turds to be the Photoshop family logo, and yet it wouldn’t affect one jot of what Photoshop actually is. …]
    John my question is…Do you mean to say that design has no impact on the perceived quality of a product? Don’t you think that’s a slippery slope? Granted Photoshop is awesome and a monopoly…But try sprinkling gel pills all over the interface and degarding the user experience and you might be surprised at what happens over time. It may take a very long time… Cool design sells, time to respect that a bit more please…
    [I stand by my statement that the greatness or crumminess of a particular logo has no bearing on the quality of workmanship that’s in Photoshop. Now, would I like to have a great-looking logo that everyone loved? Sure I would. But I wouldn’t trade it for having an idea that everyone loves, like enabling P2P help inside Photoshop, or enabling kuler-powered color picking.
    So yes, the design of advertising and packaging has a big impact on perceived quality, and I’m as big a fan of doing it right as anyone I know. (I had a 1985 vintage Mac brochure taped to my door in college as it was so well done.) But this logo, and much of Adobe marketing, just “are what they are,” and I have to save my ammo for other fights–namely, fights to wring every possible drop of functional goodness into the app itself. –J.]

  344. Maybe the marketing folks should be spending more time proofreading text materials than designing [bleep] like this. I just flushed the water closet on all of my old version of Adobe stuff and purchase a full license of CS3…my free gift which I had no idea I was going to be entitled to…included an email. I chose the Dreamweaver XML Export Extension… and found this mispelling. “Click here to learn more about Adobe Dreamewaver Developer Toolbox.” I guess if the logo doesn’t really matter then there is certainly no harm in mispelling the product name(s)…

  346. This logo sucks. What happened with the top notch simple and elegant CS3 brand design?
    [Dude… seriously… the CS3 icon isn’t changing… I’ve said this more times now than I can count. –J.]
    It wasn’t “cool” enough for some people?

  347. Put me in the “no likey” category. While I appreciate and believe in the need for brand unity within the PS family, this looks like a throwaway until something better comes along.
    And since this is vaguely germane, I’d like to add one of my favorite logo stories:
    http://www.gloveboxsociety.org/files/onlighter.html
    And then there’s the nearly-$100K work of inspired genius at UCLA (no offense intended to students, alumni, or faculty):
    http://identity.ucla.edu/graphicstandards/index.shtml

  348. [Dude… seriously… the CS3 icon isn’t changing… I’ve said this more times now than I can count. –J.]
    The fact that you need to say that so many times should be a clue that Adobe’s marketeers have failed miserably. While it may be clear to you as an Adobe insider that the Mendeleevian product logos are distinct from the overall Photoshop “Speech Balloon 2.0” logo, it’s obviously confusing many customers who aren’t Adobe insiders. Rather than being (perhaps understandably) frustrated at all the disparaging reader comments, you might do better to pass them on to your Vice President of Marketing with a note that says “[Dude… seriously… you’ve messed up big time! -J]” Maybe they should outsource the logos to India, just like everyone else is doing. It would save your shareholders a bucket of rupees, and they certainly couldn’t do any worse than whoever came up with the squishy blue logo and its insipid tagline.

  351. I know it has got to be a bit of a bummer to hear all of this negative feedback. I am sure that everyone commenting here has a profound respect for the efforts made in designing this. Nothing ever looks as simple as it is and it always takes 10x longer than anyone would think.
    Photoshop is an amazing product and we use it at my firm everyday in designing our Christmas Cards for businesses and corporations… Nothing will stop that (-:
    Thanks for the hard work regardless of whether we like the “thing”…
    [True dat, and thanks for saying so. 🙂 You wouldn’t believe how far a word of encouragement goes sometime. –J.]

  352. Oh… oh god. Photoshop’s new logo is an awkwardly balanced speech bubble? I don’t even understand the symbolism. This is a genuinely horrible brand mark, and adobe of all people should understand good design. I’m marking this as an utter failure.

  353. I prefer this any time over the CS3 periodic table icons! At least it has a look of it’s own, also like the association the the letter ‘P’ for Photoshop. All in all not that bad. Maybe make it a little less look like a speech bubble and it will work out fine.
    Markus

  354. Besides the logo graphic being unoriginal, uninspiring, and a version of an aqua web2.0 style talk bubble… what’s with the type?! the negative space that the poorly placed tagline and title create throw the whole thing off-kilter and off-balance. Did Adobe use the same agency as Quark to come up with this?
    And is there going to be any continuity at all with Adobe’s new identity? The program icons, the packaging, this new logo, adobe’s logo… nothing fits together.
    Luckily Adobe is in a position to not be hurt too much by this muddled image. If this was a new company I hadn’t heard of the disarray in identity would have me think twice about the quality of the product.
    PS – I love that the icons they have now totally unify Adobe’s program line (It’s a visual reassurance that Adobe is trying to get all products to work together), but either get rid of them or make them the logos…

  355. Wow I’m sorry but that is terrible. The logo looks ‘cheap’ and childish, everything that Photoshop isn’t and the copy is just horrible too, the only thing I like about it is the tagline.
    Seriously, Adobe, what are you thinking?

  356. I was passed this link by someone else and assumed the whole thing was some sort of joke (until I actually looked at the URL!).
    This is a HORRIBLE logo, 100% terrible. Whoever made this should be fired as they clearly have no clue. I could write a massive story describing why, but what’s the point? everyone hates it.
    Lets just hope this is all enough for Adobe to listen (and seriously question how the person that designed it got their job).

  357. This is the first time I’ve ever read comments and found nearly everyone in agreement. I think that means it’s time to keep well enough alone. Also, the CS3 icons are still horrible usability wise (especially with trying to associate colors with applications), we simply stopped complaining. I get it, coming up with something good for these apps is hard, but it needs to be done. I’m still trying to think of something good to replace them with 🙂

  360. credo che questo logo sia ben fatto, perchè la nuvoletta riprende i pensieri delle persone dei fumetti, e che quindi photoshop riesce a realizzate quello che c’è nella mente, quello che si immagina.

  361. Oh dear oh dear oh dear…. Inconsistency, ugliness, Aqua (7 years out of date), non-relation -ness to the product… Adobe, WHATS HAPPENED HERE? Fix it please!!!!

  363. This P is quite commonplace, especially because it seems familiar, and of course, the familiarity destine this to a wide audience.
    Yet this p come out of a vanguard identity work by some aspect. When we see the arsenal of images (3D motion design, package, print, etc.) and multiple sophisticated declinations of this logo, we can understand the concept covering all: “see what’s possible.”
    http://www.tolleson.com/project.php?uid=CCD918&referto=featured
    Of course, first watching it I was surprised and disappointed by this “small” logo, but we need to review our points of view in a few weeks (when the logo will be seen “live”, deployed, fully representing a set of products) and it is possible that the work of Tolleson then will seem much more powerful. There is a promise of possibilities, discoveries and this promise is ambitious.
    Internet is probably the media where this logo is expected to evolve in strength (in motion), unfortunately the print version is not the best one. Wait and see.

  373. Hi JOhn,
    Thanks for your information, I always like photoshop logo, actually after stating my computer career I started learning photoshop after basic of computer, so photoshop is my first love software, but one thing photoshop is much much updating but image ready is not so fast updating as photoshop.
    Thanks
    Deb

  374. I can help but think about RealPlayer when I see it. I’ve always related a feather to PS – a bird, taking flight, all that. There’s a great deal you can do with a feather in terms of logo design.
    Ah…opinions, opinions. Annoyed yet? 😀
    Peace.

  375. Realmente…..es una ofensa para los diseñadores….no puede ser que un programa como este tenga un logo tan infantil….simplista lo acepto…pero esto..?????…la verdad deja mucho que desear.
    Eso.

  376. Ewwwwww, I absolutely hate the logo. It looks like a wanna-be graphic designer came up with it. Or like it belongs to Real Networks. Ugly as hell if you ask me….

  377. I like Phtoshop a lot but think they could get a lot more users if they made it a lot easier for beginners to use it. As it is today then beginners can not use Photoshop at all for not even the simplest things.

  378. Hate it… pleezzzz you’re creating a logo for a creative’s product without being creative at all…
    That logo reminds me the iChat logo, the silverlight’s logo and many many many others.
    Please… use your head a bit pleez.

  381. It was some getting used to the new style of the CS3 icons, but now that I am, it makes sense, and it’s consistent throughout all the CS products. But this Photoshop logo… It looks like a 4-year old made it in Windows Paint. It’s so far off Adobe’s professional look that it’s scary.

  382. pointless. this is the ugliest logo I’ve ever seen. talking about being creative. who the hell “designed”(haha) that?

  385. Yeah, you guys are making total sense. Let me point a few things out to you.
    1) The logo does NOT affect the program. It’s not like Photoshop runs ANY differently with this logo then it did with the last, or will with the next. Why you’re all bent outta shape about this AND the CS3 logos is BEYOND me. Chill out. Besides, would you rather they spend their time making a logo that you like, or making the program even better? I vote for the latter.
    2) People keep comparing this tto the PBS logo…HUH!?! Somehow this speech-bubble-styled “P” does NOT remind me of a circle with faces in it.
    3) All those comments talking about firing the guy who made this logo are stupid. So he made the logo that doesn’t honestly look that bad (not what any of us were expecting, but not terrible)…what’s your point? Even if this WAS as bad as all you morons seem to think, everyone makes mistakes.
    Lastly, I don’t see how this logo would affect anyone’s opinion of Adobe OR their products. YOU’RE not designing the next Photoshop box, so YOU don’t ever have to use it for any reason. Therefore, YOU should shut your traps and go back to designing stuff with the best imaging software, good logo or not.

  386. Hy!
    My question is may a bit odd, but is has something to do with the Photoshop logo.
    So: is it legal, to have a Photoshop logo tatto on my wrist? Or I must pay royalty? 😀
    I’m thinking of the ps cs2 logo.
    [Yeah? 🙂 Check out this guy. –J.]

  387. Hi,
    The new logo is horrible, I think the logo need remember something, and whem I see this logo I didnt remember anything.
    And is very very ugly, the metal/shining style is not my personal favorite. Im not a professional designer, but the logo is terrible bad designed.
    The periodic table logos are far better beautifull than this new logo. (sorry about my english)

  388. hi,
    don’t u think the logo is like those eyes mask to costume party? the hole is kind of a telescope lens? created by a “p” letter? if it is what i thought then i would say it is a good concept. unfortunately it is not very good in aesthetics… check out the link “http://swp.cutandpaste.com/” for a better idea of the logo background and updates!

  390. It’s a shiny semi-transparent anus, representing the bad judgment of the photoshop marketing team.
    WEAK.

  393. “…I’m working to get the designers responsible for it to show the steps that brought us to this point. –J.]”
    Where is this information? I first saw this a few weeks ago and before I knew of any backlash whatsoever, I was stunned. I sent a comment to Adobe that has about the same level of emotion as most of these posts. I didn’t “get on a blog bandwagon” and then post.
    Regardless, when I saw the logo, I *immediately* thought of three things. Kind of like when smell breezes through the office, though faint, you mind searches, like “popcorn? fire? burnt coffee”?
    My immediate visual stumped-ness left my right brain feeling kind of “zapped”, and I couldn’t place what zapped me. Here is what I thought:
    – PBS “P” that faces left from the “PBS” logo
    – iChat
    – speech bubble
    Then I saw something on the right that reminded me of a P with the hole but it feels like I fell off a cliff.
    In the end, the reaction was the same as if 3 people with different voices and languages all said something to me at the exact same time and cadence.
    I’m bewildered.
    I’m left to conclude that it makes no sense. It seems like a junior design effort with unclear specifications that went through “design by committee”.
    The only thought that someone mentioned that makes any sense is that there is a painters palette in there somewhere, but I’m left feeling like I failed a Rorschach test, which as you know, is hard to do, except in a dream.
    This logo induces a dream like trance of confusion.
    What’s jarring is that it comes from Adobe, which is the paradox. If this was a startup company logo, there’d be no reaction on my part. This just doesn’t fit anything Adobe. It could have, if it had been rolled out as part of an entire suite of new branding and website. But isolated like this, it just makes no sense.
    So, someone explain what this is and where it’s going?
    I can see how the logo in the Mac tray is going to be confusing along side of iChat.
    Until further notice, I’m expecting a chat-collaboration tool embedded in Photoshop CS4!
    In summary, this logo is “too clever by half”, which is a way of saying something, in a quest for high-brow meaning and sophistication, has become instead the very thing it tried to avoid, and is trapped in it’s own mediocrity.

  395. I only saw this yesterday and thought “April fools, nice one. Just a bit too garish and ridiculous.”
    Then I notice that the thing’s for real. I’m truly speechless. With the periodic table logos, Adobe had managed to come up with the single most beautiful and suitable set of application icons ever designed, and now this.
    No balance at all, basically an almost cynical summary of all the things Apple got wrong during their Aqua craze, and to top it all off, the most uninspired and flat tagline.
    Has Adobe stopped trying all of a sudden? I really don’t understand.
    Thank heavens for the possibility to replace icons, I’ll back up my CS3 set right away.

  398. Yes, like Steve asked, What program did they use???
    [Why do you ask? Either the design is good or it isn’t. Whether they used Photoshop, MacPaint, a Rapidograph, or stone knives is irrelevant, as only the final product matters. –J.]

  400. Mercifully, this logo seems to have faded away eleven months later. It’s nowhere to be found on the site.

  401. It’s hard for Adobe to design logo’s which are not recognizable, not just because of the massive scale of marketing, also because every designer either works with products of adobe or has heard of them lots of times.
    I can see the letter P in it and the shape migth be associated with a camera, the logo looks also as if a photoshop filter was used. Most likely these assosciative properties are designed deliberately. Unfortunenately the logo design doesn’t stand out as a logo as photoshop does as a product.
    The logo should at least communicate to Adobe’s customers that Adobe is sensitive for design (not only the tools used for design). The logo looks as if the first raw draft was being used as the final logo design. I think most designers agree Adobe can do so much better. We’ll see if we are right about that when the next logo arrives….

  402. Naaaa, come on people. Its just gotta be a joke – brilliant for bringing attention. GOTTA BE. Because if isnt – I am speachless. It has as much quality as Bollywood movies and as much good taste – perhaps Adobe is outsourcing India as well?

  404. …”A picture says a thousand words”
    Ring a bell?
    [Are you just trying to say “You suck”? Because you could just say that. –J.]

  405. After staring at this thing for quite a while, I finally recognised what ist is.
    After you have read the next few lines you will say: oh my god, he (in this case it’s me) is right!
    Ok then, fasten your seatbelts:
    This thing is a one-eyed walle! At least the head of it.
    You’re welcome.

  406. What do I have to say about Adobe Photoshop LE? It and Adobe sucks.
    [You know that Photoshop LE was discontinued, what, 7 years ago, right? –J.]
    I’ve been sitting here for about 30 minutes trying to use the Smudge Tool (as I had been using successfully this morning). As of about 11am perhaps it just stopped working, almost as if it were a disgruntled employee who wanted more pay.
    I tried everything, stopping/starting PS. Restarting the computer. Checking my hard drive space. It finally dawned on me that maybe it *was* behaving like an employee who demanded more pay: I stopped PS, adjusted the clock ahead by one day and suddenly Photoshop LE’s Smudge Tool worked again.
    IN OTHER WORDS, ADOBE PUTS A USE COUNT INTO THEIR STINKING PRODUCT AND WON’T ALLOW YOU TO USE THE SOFTWARE YOU PAID FOR.
    [I have no idea what you’re talking about, and because you’ve supplied a fake name & fake email address, I can’t ask you for more details. What a great use of everyone’s time! –J.]
    So I had to keep repeating this nonsense just to finish my work on this single graphic. I’ll be damned if I ever buy another program from Adobe.

  407. I think it’s just wonderful that it would appear that Adobe listened and the awful logo never happened. Adobe’s products absolutely Rock!!! Adobe is a great company with class-leading products. I hope I am not wrong but it will probably be a while before I move over to CS4…I am still getting our Christmas-cards-designing staff over to CS3. Merry Christmas 2008! Happy Holidays!…and a belated Happy Thanksgiving! Best Regards…and thank you.

  408. It looks like Microsoft Silverlight. I think Adobe is profession and you could do much better than this logo. The logo with blue speech is not suitable for Adobe, exception that the blue color is fair nice.

  409. I really don’t care about Photoshop’s logo. I use CS4, it is a great professional tool, and I just don’t look at the logo.

  410. I really don’t care about Photoshop’s logo. I use CS4, it is a great professional tool, and I just don’t look at the logo.

  411. What are you talking about Alex, I love this!! Simplicity and it echoes the recent move towards web 2.0 style graphics

  415. Not really good, why? Please use that old square from CS3 more good. In my opinion this new logo is a crap, why? It’s simple LOL, is NOT for PS! 😉 Omg that blue color is horrible…

  422. its great software, that is all that matters to me.So people must stop all the complaints

  423. The great software that started it all is still the best of them all. NO matter what the logo is.