Site needs a new name

My Q in the OP was legitimate, I have done a 180 in some and many respects (I work in parallel) - this doesn't mean a 150; it means 0 20 30 45 90 120 180. But that's just me, it's not normal to be that open (the abstract math world I'm involved with every day is beyond this stuff).

So on balance, dpREVIVED IMO is good, though I'm not closing anything else out - and so I'm am very glad to have started this thread. Someone else would have anyway (and I'm not such a bad candidate).

For me too.
There is one more single-word variation, BTW - DPrevived. Subject to autocorrection sometimes :(
If we separate dp and revived, then both parts can be in lower case, like dp revived.

But recalling that good logo/name has to have some quirks, then dpREVIVED is better.

Just for ideas, not a serious suggestion - we can start playing with mirrored letters too, like REVIVƎD or pǝʌıʌǝɹ dp or dp ɹǝʌıʌǝd and so on :)

I tried mirrored letters, as there's an obvious centre around the 'I' between the two 'V's which in turn are between two 'E's. But I didn't see the point, it just made it harder to read and tricksy for no reason. All is on the back burner, ready to be brought forward if there is good reason.

I think the dpREVIVED text-logo should be fairly simple, though maybe a bit more work is required to the base version I knocked up. Like, is .com also required? Should 'digital photography' be added above/below - to clarify the dp? Then there should be a graphic logo - more compact and abstract.

IMO '.com' is not needed. 'digital photography' - not on logo, maybe in site header/description. Graphical logo - you didn't bash my previous ideas, where dp was built from lens schematics - this dp part was suitable for icon too. Recalling some of your previuos ideas - no 3D, please :)
One more possible quirk, based on symmetry - dpREViVED - can be read as revved (depend on font, colors and letter spacings).
Or for icon - render 'dp' or 'dpr' in some exotic font and you are done. Again just for ideas :)

Just providing the link to your text-logos, as things are getting lost in this ever-growing thread -
dprevived.com/t/site-needs-a-new-name/406/post/5575/

There was so much going on in those versions I didn't know where to look ;-) Actually the lens / optics of the d and p is quite a good idea. I did find the fonts too high and thin, as if from a slimming campaign, and kinda reminded me of the hp logo (-which is ok, and not as thin). So I'm not sure how such tall fonts relate to this site ...anyway the optics of dp...

I've applied a couple of 'lenses' to the same verticals of the d and p...

it looks ok, but the 'lenses' might need to be more obvious - as lenses yet without being too show-offy, and for some reason it's getting more 'fonty' and corporate than the basic version. Maybe there is some mileage to go with this optic/lens idea. So how to make them look more like lenses while keeping it focused and restrained, i.e. without adding loads more colours or extra graphics otherwise it'll quickly get messy for no reason.

This is more like lenses, it's getting a bit more abstract and looks ok, unless we want the dp to be super clear and easy to read :

Making the 'lenses' flatter on the inside more convex on the outside, does make them look a tad more like solid pieces of glass (though I do like the version directly above) :

Back to the base :

This - and then you gave me few ideas to make the dp part more stylized. With that I had to change font also - Gill is a bit emotionless, at least in this context :) As always, some unneeded graphical noise added.

That's clever and attractive.

I'm still fond of UK Gill !

and may be the 'lens graphic' not so tall/thin and the space between it and REVIVED more regular? I'm keeping these smallish within the embed to be closer to their size if on a regular page, open them to see larger -

or on dark with colour differentiation between the verticals of d & p, and their 'lenses' -

It looks little boring to me, sorry. In your base design contrast between dp and REVIVED makes it live; using it only for uppercase part unfortunately not - that's one reason why I'm choosing different fonts.

Needs some more testing, maybe in icon form too.
My idea about graphic was that all parts of d/p letters should have similar visual width - in your second version curved parts are much heavier. Well, to use with Gill this is likely needed. Your first version is actually more balanced in this regard. You could play with reducing font size (or increasing dp size) a little, for my font choice it made a big difference.
About space between elements - in my version it looks optimal :)

/edit/ Your dark design appeared - looks good, esp. first one. I would say that dp letters are lost - but this may not be a problem at all.

I know that you like your design more - and I think that mine is better anyway :)

...I take everything on board and remain open.

The good point about the first vers of the dark design, is in connecting the verticals of dp - it looks like a shutter - within a lens. So now we also have a shutter! - kind of.

The clever bit is that the 'dp' looks like a lens diagram.

The problem with that is that it detracts from the lensiness.

yes I'm not sure what is detracting, but my 'lenses' look less like lenses than Arvo's. Maybe mine are too fat (not tall enough), and the flat top and bottom edges not pronounced enough.

Even if Gill Sans isn't the ticket I still have some basic aversion to calligraphic fonts (and serif fonts) in this context. But I may be just one in a million.