Conce

luciano_vergara's picture

Hello, critique this typeface is a common attempt of sintesis
thank you very much
Conce is for concepci

hrant's picture

I think it's pretty cool - a nice mix of organic and 21st century.
But it seems to be trying too hard in some places.

Vertical proportions: very good.
"e": too soft.
"f": too shy.
"i"/"j" dots: way too strong.
"k": out of character.
"t": out of character... heck, no character. :-/
"v"/"w"/"x"/"y"/"z": should be less stiff, somehow.
Numerals: nice and rationalist! "3" and "5" need polish, "6" is way off, "7" and "9" are imbalanced, great "8", the "4" should get its trapping at the very end! :-)
UC: you got some great glyphs in there, like the "Q"; "G" needs help; "M" too much; "S" too dark; "N", same as "4" - trap last!
Spacing: decent, for now.

Good luck!

hhp

eomine's picture

Overall I agree with Hrant's comments.
I'd just like to add that:
- the bars of 'E' and 'F' are a bit too high
- Q: keep the thickness of the horizontal ending stroke until its end, the optical adjustment should be applied to the right-side curve of the bowl;
- the 'R' looks sad, I'd make its leg straight or subtly curve.

luciano_vergara's picture

Hello thank you very much Hrant and Eduardo, I believe that it is right in its commentaries. I am working in it.
Very thanked
LV

luciano_vergara's picture

Hello, this is a new attempt,
Please to explaining the commentary of "Q"
Thanks for your critiques



application/pdf26/10/2004
conce2.pdf (127.8 k)

hrant's picture

kvwxyz: I think you might have gone too far - but maybe not.
t: superb
4: give it that "7" curve.

hhp

eomine's picture

The Q: the tail is too thin and too tapered. I understand that you probably did it that way because otherwise the whole glyph would look too dark. And there's another issue, the relationship between the tail and the bowl.

See my small illustration below:
Left: original Q (I quickly traced over it directly on screen).
Middle: tail with increased weight and not-tapered.
Right: tail incorporated to the bowl, instead of being a separated element. The weight of the bowl was slightly reduced where it meets the tail, for optical compensation.

q

hrant's picture

The righthand "Q" is mud, and the middle "Q" has little character. But if you took the middle "Q" and thinned the join with the bowl (effectively giving it a flare towards the outside) it might become better than the original.

hhp

degregorio2's picture

i think the counters of the curves its a little too much.
I think the proportions of the counters are not right...

Remember:
http://www.typophile.com/cgibin/show.pl?30/42469



The first bid is your work, and the second bid, is the version what "i think is correct".

The red lines is the second bid and the blue lines are the first bid.

JP

hrant's picture

Juan Pablo, your version has had the interesting modulation removed. It's more conventional, which is good for some things, but certainly less interesting, less "progressive". As for the "i", I agree it's generally useful for the dot to be lower than the ascenders, but you will note that in the original the dot's curve does not overshoot the line, so it is in fact visually lower. This sort of aligned-but-not approach I think is sometimes useful, and I've done that myself in Patria a little bit (for example where the dot of the "i"/"j" aligns -visually- with the caps, but is lower than the ascenders).

hhp

Syndicate content Syndicate content