Tomi from Suomi's picture

This is my latest, Tanner family. For italic I made some swash glyphs to go with this family, but now I do not know where to stop.

Any ideas?

hrant's picture

So the darker weights are much wider?


sardiez's picture

Hi Tomi,

You seem to be a machine.

I like what I can see, it would be nice if you provide a bigger view of italics, however I think they look great, I love "Th" and "Q". The "is" ligature is beyond the line for me, it doesn't look very clean and helpful.

Maybe you didn't ask, but I suggest to correct the condensed effect on the thinnest weights.

Nice job!!!


Strabismus's picture

Tämä on erittäin mukava kirjasin! :)

calvintennant's picture

Lovely, your italics have an outstanding amount of character. Could we get a larger view of them?

Calvin Tennant

hrant's picture

I would call this Italic "Cursive", make a more sedate Italics (at the same inclination) and use the Cursive for emphasis in a body of the Italic (or even for nested emphasis).


Tomi from Suomi's picture


And thanks for the comments.

Those are in fact Swash Italics; basic italics are pretty standard. They are still a work in progress, and I'm giving them hiatus for a day or two, while I finish my version of Kabel (I named that Kaapeli).

telex's picture

There is a huge variation of the letter structure between thin and extra-bold version, where bold are wider than thin, or the x-height is changing between the versions. There is any idea or concept behind that?
Try to equal the x-height (or make it preety similar) and check what happen with the type.

In any other way it's very interesting.

ebensorkin's picture

The e and o get too dark as you go to bold. I think that compressing and expanding the width is something to be done in another set of fonts ideally speaking. Still you are showing quite a bit of promise with this.

Tomi from Suomi's picture

Thank for the comments, Andrés and Eben-

Tanner is a study of serif type for me. I'm also working on Caslon-style. But this design is one that is just natural to me. Basically I just started making glyphs, and see what they'd look like. I went back and forth a bit, and evenutually got the book weight.

Andrés; with this amount of change in weight, I could keep the weights and widths closer together, but I don't want to make a condensed/extended family. Any suggestions how to do that?

Eben: 'a' gets too dark as well. And I'm not happy with the colour of 'e' and 'o' either.

With sans serif it's enough to draw three weights: the thinnest, book, and the heaviest. With serif this method no longer applies. I have to figure out how to work this out.

hrant's picture

The problem with varying the width that much between weights is that it causes a large shift in the character of the typeface. A user who finds a lighter weight suitable for a job is unlikely to find a darker weight suitable for the same job.


oli_type's picture

just a beginner but:

the diagonal-contrast of the "semi-bold" is a little bigger than the others, non?!
i mean the proportional rate(anyway in comparison to "bold" and light").
look at the "o".

and in my opinion the serifs between "n"/"m" look bizzare,
because they realy tight in comparison to the rest "white-room"(?).
another detail: the right serif of the last stem of the bold "m".
needn't it to be highter than the left serif of the "i" (or)
the the serifs of "i" should be "more open".

but the last two points also can be a result of my LCD.

Syndicate content Syndicate content