Falcons Logo Redesign: Compare the Design Changes

Define the alternatives

Before judging a falcons logo redesign, identify what is actually being compared. A redesign may change only the bird mark, only the wordmark, or the full lockup across several color and background versions. The right comparison depends on intended use: an avatar-sized social image, a header on a website, a printed sign, or a broadcast-style graphic. Keep the review limited to the versions in front of you rather than expanding it to every possible logo style.

For a practical visual check, place each candidate side by side at the same height and on the same neutral background. If you are using an image tool, keep the source files separate and avoid evaluating a screenshot that has already been resampled or compressed.

Compare meaningful differences

A useful comparison separates shape, contrast, typography and production details. Start with silhouette: whether the falcon is shown in flight, perched, simplified to a geometric mark, or combined with another symbol. Check how the beak, wing tips, eye and negative space survive at a small size. Details that read clearly in a large presentation may close up when the logo is reduced.

Next, compare the color system. Note whether the redesign relies on gradients, flat tones, outlines, or a dark version for photography and video. If text is included, compare weight, spacing, case and whether the type remains legible under the mark. Compatibility matters if the logo must sit on a score graphic, jersey texture, dark interface or bright advertising background.

File and workflow differences are also part of the comparison. Check which format is available for each version, whether transparent and monochrome variants exist, and whether the redesign keeps the mark in a form that can be exported cleanly. Do not assume that every published image will work as a source asset.

Practical trade-offs

A more detailed falcon can create a stronger identity at large sizes, but it may need testing in a tiny favicon or a low-resolution print. A simplified mark can be more flexible across backgrounds and sizes, but it may lose some character that the previous emblem had. Neither choice is automatically better; the trade-off depends on where the logo will appear most often.

Color and contrast create another trade-off. A high-contrast lockup can remain readable over busy sports or broadcast footage, while a softer palette may look more editorial but less distinct on screen. Treat published specifications separately from observed performance: a contrast problem should be tested with the actual background or a contrast tool rather than assumed from a static preview.

There is also a production trade-off. A redesign that looks strong as a single hero image may be harder to use if the only available file is flattened, low resolution or missing a transparent version. When comparing, check whether the candidate can support dark and light surfaces, small placements and a clean silhouette without manual repair.

Choose for the use case

Choose the version that fits the primary use case, not the one that simply looks most elaborate. For a small web header, profile image or favicon, favor a mark with a strong silhouette, limited fine detail and enough internal contrast. For a large screen, poster or title card, a more expressive falcon may be acceptable if the accompanying text remains secondary.

When the likely background is dark or unpredictable, select the version with the clearest separation from the surface. If the design will be used in print, check for a flat or vector-oriented version that does not depend on a screen gradient. Avoid claiming a final winner without testing the required placements; a conditional recommendation is more reliable than a ranking based only on the largest presentation.

Finally, keep the comparison evidence-based. If the redesign includes a full logo family, note which specific variants have been supplied, what formats are present, and what still needs verification. That gives you a short, reproducible review without inventing measurements or hands-on testing that was not performed.