Over the last few years or so there has been a resurgence of designers looking to the past for inspiration and originality. Now this might seem to be counterproductive, and in some cases that is true, but it can often lead to some really visually interesting work. To me the difference between “vintage” and “retro” is simple: vintage is the original design created with the tools available at the time while retro is a design that tries to mimic the look and feel of the original but is reliant on current tools and technology.

I do not understand wanting to create something retro. Design that is created in a retro style to me always feels like it is simply paying homage to an era or style but  always seems to be missing a certain feel of authenticity. Often a design tries to recreate a feeling or style of a particular era by using a similar color palette, grid layout, fonts or subject matter but there is always something that isn’t quite right. A lot of the finished designs feels similar to watching a movie with cheap special effects that are so bad that it takes you out of the moment, breaks the suspension of disbelief and you become aware that you are watching a movie with bad effects. I am of the belief that if you are going to go through the trouble of trying to have a vintage feel, why not try to get the design as close to the original as possible without plagiarizing. It is very possible to achieve a vintage feel while still adding a unique or modern twist. Instead a large portion of projects ends up in the retro category. Sometimes this is the abuse of technology and sometimes it the fault of a lazy designer who doesn’t pay attention to the details.

Now I know you might be thinking at this point, “Ok already, we get it. You would like to see more designers strive for vintage-like designs instead of retro designs. But do you have any examples?” Yes. Yes I do.

For Christmas I received the book, Retro Graphics, a visual sourcebook to 100 years of graphic design. The book itself is pretty interesting as that it does exactly what the title implies and gives the reader a broad overview of the key movements in design over the last 100 years. It also provides some nice examples of each of the movements and breaks them down with a little history and shows typical color palettes and fonts from that era. This in itself is worth the price of the book but my problems arise when the book begins to give a tutorial in how to create a design in the style of each of the movements. Now the title of the book specifically states “retro” so I already know that these examples are striving for the over all feel but not authenticity. So I cannot find fault with the book on that point. The point I would like to make is to show how with a few slight tweaks to some of their tutorials they could have make the finished design more “vintage-like” and less “retro”.

Below scans of the samples used for the Plakatstil Movement section.

Now upon first viewing of these two designs side by side, I would say that they have done a pretty solid job of mimicking the over all look and feel of a Plakatsil design. To me, this falls squarely in the “retro” design category. So on that level it has done its job, but what if we wanted to bring this into the realm of “vintage-like”? What would need to be addressed? In order to find out what needs to be done, we have to look at what makes these two different. So the first thing we need to find out is what is the main emphasis for each of the designs.

Layout
The original design does a great job with utilizing its negative space to help focus the viewer’s attention. By placing the image of the man slightly off center, the design has a slight feel of movement and organic-ness to it. Notice how the lines of the man’s jacket lead the eye back to the center of the design and down to the logo? It becomes clear that the brand name, OPEL is the main message of this design. The placement and size of the logo clearly establish the information hierarchy.

For the retro design the designer has chosen to reverse the hierarchy. The brand logo is now at the top of the design while the product (the handbag) not only sits at the bottom but also slightly overlaps the logo. The product with its size and placement clearly is established as the main focus of the design. So unlike the original design, the message of this design is not about the brand but instead it is about the brand’s service or product. The large horizontal logo fills up almost all of the space at the top and optically carries about the same amount of “design weight” as the product. Not only does this confuse the hierarchy of importance but it also uses the negative space in a clumsy way that removes any movement of organic-ness that the original establishes.

Typography
While initially the type on both designs looks similar, there are some issues with the retro design that hinder it from establishing that “vintage” feel. I have already mentioned how the placement of the logo has changed the message hierarchy but it also changes the feel of the design. Notice the generous amount of kerning between each of the letters on the original’s OPEL? This is what helps give it the design an open, organic feel by co-existing with the established negative space. Loose kerning was a staple of vintage designs, especially in posters, since the type needed to be read at a distance. This fact seems to be lost on the designer of the retro design.

The word “Piquier” seems to be placed in the top of this design with a shoehorn. The extra stroke on the letters is not only thinner than the original and will be visually lost at a slight distance, but it also creates many uneven spatial issues. Adjusting the size of the type as well as the product to the overall space will allow for the typography to be fixed and at the same time help utilize the negative space to create some of the visual movement and organic feel of the original design.

Upon close inspection, it can be seen that the outer stroke on the originals type is not perfect and shifts in size and weight slightly. It gives the typography a hand sign-painted feel. There is no better way to achieve this effect than to actually create the type by hand. (gasp) A very simple solution to this can be achieved by setting the typography digitally,  then print it out and using a good marker or brush, re-trace the typography on one sheet of tracing paper. Create and ink the outline stroke on another piece of tracing paper. Scan both sheets into separate Photoshop layers and adjust accordingly. That little bit of effort and tactile connection to the work will not only give the final work an extra level of authentic feel but it will also help the designer to pay attention to the details of the work.

Style
The final aspect that needs to be addressed is the graphic elements themselves. In the original there is the quite beautifully rendered illustration of the man’s head. What makes this exceptionally striking is not only the interesting way that he is cropped but the simple use of geometric shapes to add depth and shading. There are very few solid lines but they convey a large amount of detail. There also is the introduction of a few more colors, which helps the graphic standout, but since the colors are in the same tonal range, the man does not fight for attention from the logo. The graphic of the man serves as a perfect compliment to the overall poster, unlike the handbag in the retro poster.

To get the retro poster to feel more “vintage”, the handbag needs some work. As I mentioned earlier, due to its size and position, the handbag is carrying the emphasis of this design. I think anyone, whether they are a designer or not, can take one look at that handbag and see that it was digitally created which automatically ruins any sort of vintage feel that the designer was trying to establish. There are three basic things wrong with this handbag that keeps it from the vintage feel it needs. The first thing wrong is auto trace applied to picture. The designer has tried to show off some of the intricate details found on the handbag. Remember what made the illustration of the man on the original so visually arresting? It was the use of a FEW geometric shapes to give a sense of detail. Due to the flat color pallet, not to mention that any of those small lines will be lost at a slight distance, there really is no point in trying to show any of the details on the handbag.

Speaking of color pallet brings me to the second thing that is wrong. The original design introduced a few complimentary colors that helped the graphics to stand out without overpowering the rest of the design. The retro poster does not introduce and new colors for the handbag which causes the whole design to sort of wash out Even though we have established that the handbag due to its position should have the focus, but keeping basically the same color scheme as the logo and occupying roughly the same amount of visual space as the logo, the handbag feels like it is slightly fighting the logo for attention.

The third thing wrong is the quality of the handbag graphic. Besides the obvious auto trace to the handbag, it looks as though little attention was given to cleaning up some of the paths created by the computer. The handbag handles look jaggy and rough. I’ve seen better clipping jobs on missing pets posters around my neighborhood. I would argue that to get the same vintage feel as the original, the handbag should be drawn by hand or at least traced by hand and scanned in, at least then if a designer still wants to auto trace it, the end result should be more consistent.

Okay, it’s getting to the point of wrapping this up. I would like to state for the record that I am not critiquing the finished design of the handbag poster. As I stated earlier that it is a great example of retro design. My goal with this post was to help identify some ways that could be applied to the retro design to get it to be closer to a vintage design. I would like to end this by showing a great example of modern design that really has a vintage feel.

Topps baseball cards have put out a series this year under the “heritage” banner. The cards use the same design and layout of their baseball cards from 1960. I have seen some failed attempt to reproduce vintage package (I’m looking at you General Mills breakfast cereals) , so I was a little skeptical when I bought a pack. The skepticism quickly turned into full on design “geek out” when I saw the actual product. Everything about the presentation is spot on. It really is amazing.

With the exception of the small-ghosted Topps logo, it really is hard to tell that these cards aren’t from the 1960s. Also some of the more modern team logos with all the bevels and swooshes(I am looking at you Toronto BlueJays) look awful when they are shrunk down for the front of the card.  No one has been able to convince me that alot of these logo / brand updates do anything to increase brand loyality or increase profits.

(SIDE NOTE:  The Philadelphia 76ers have just made a bold choice to go back to their classic vintage logo from the early 80’s and I couldn’t be happier!)

I don’t even follow baseball that much, let alone collect the baseball cards but I am now on a mission to collect every card from this series just out of love and respect for the design.  Check out some of the cards below:

Posted on June 24, 2009
Filed under TDBA News, The Dispatch