The only time a drop shadow is OK with me is when it's behind a cut-out photo object isolated on top of a plain white background. But with type--no, never, please. I'm often getting into mini-confrontations with the art director at my work because he likes drop shadows (he thinks they add "depth," but I prefer flat things to stay flat). I consider shadow effects an unsatisfactory last-resort solution for when you need to set type on top of a busy photo background.
(Psst, don't tell anyone, but I usually tone down the effects in Photoshop *after* the A.D. has approved the design, and if he ever notices afterwards--so far he hasn't--my plan is to blame it on our laser printer or the photo house.)
I usually dislike gradients and gratuitous textures also. I guess it's all a matter of taste.
When dat kuva with all da line products had to be done, they still were all moke-ups. I added drop shadows, layered the effect and erased some no-sense zones. Accordind to my boss, typography is mine, logotype by him. I enjoyed very much working with him because he is horny with the color matters, he is really a pro in photo-retouch. He lives and work in a beautiful castel town called Castell'Arquato.
In some cases on the web, GUI drop shadows can be brilliant - in print it usually smacks of photoshop and looks novice. I think it can be done well, but usually it's just used as a contrived way to contrast the type against its background.
I think it depends more on the person laying out the type than the effect.
Oh, sorry, Kris, I just realized that maybe your question was strictly about type. Then I would use da dropshadow with a Comic Sans light to increase the bouma ! http://www.paolofresu.it/ :-)
If you can find my signature somewhere on my website (www.as8.it) you can see I used it there, it seems to me that the sign gets in a more 'natural' feeling. Now that I think, I could design my site with a off-white paper. AS
Well, the reason I ask is because at our weekly meeting the boss said that the signs we were making can be enhanced by either pinstripe borders or dropshadows, to give them that little something. I had an initial gut reaction of "no way", but thought about this ingrained prejudic e of mine and wondered if whether there was a place for them. I am still not really convinced
Leslie Cabarga in 'The Logo Font and Lettering Bible' has a chapter on 'Incredible Type Trix' with all kinds of 3-d effects, including drop shadows, block shadows, bevels etc. If I remember Letterror's 'Federal' has a lot of this also.
I don't think the question here is a 'yes' or 'no'. It should be rather where is it appropriate? Where will it add, where detract?
Michael Schwab uses a gray outline ... although this might not be what you need ... I do like how he uses it and to great affect. Seems to me to be an elegant way to separate information.
there should be "a little something" without drop shadow or bevel effect. in my opinion it's just a cheap attempt of polishing your work.. keep it simple and functional.
Kris, about one of 8 of Jim Parkinson's superb logos uses outlines or shadows or both. See them at his web site. These I think show that these techniques can be useful and effective, in the right hands, for the appropriate project.
Leslie Cabarga has many illustrations which use it, though you may not like their consciously retro style.
Oh and a number of Louise Fili's astonishingly beautiful food and restaurant logos use drop shadows, as well as intricate treatments of the 'solid' of a letter. In her work, you can see particularly clearly how the shadow, when she uses it, is an integral part of the concept of the design.
i'm not saying that there's technically something wrong with louise fili's work, but it's closer to illustration than an effective or recognisable mark.
and what comes to jim parkinson's work, we're more likely talking about one colour contours. the question is does the contour or dropshadow make it more recognisable?
most of the cases i see that shadow or contour is an added value without a real function.
I don't think there's any question that shadows or contours can be effective ways to enhance lettering. I think you acknowledge that Mikael by using the word 'most' in the post above, instead of 'all'.
So in some cases, the shadow or contour does add real function.
It's the job of the lettering artist to determine when the shadow or contour helps the piece, and when it's superfluous.
Mikael, I don't think this argument really holds up to the examples I just linked to, as well as those that BJ has just done. For example, the Cromos logo of Jim Parkinson is very well drawn (a modified Futura), and then the red with white outline and black shadow give it a loudness and drama that it wouldn't otherwise have. Of course your personal taste might be something more classic and restrained, but I think it is hard to argue that a restrained style should be everywhere for everything.
I think you do have a point that tarting up a poorly drawn logo with effects is like the proverbial 'putting lipstick on a pig', but hey, lipstick on Marilyn Monroe looked pretty great. And it does on the well drawn 'Cromos' logo too.
On Louise Fili, part of her distinctive genius is integrating illustration and lettering so perfectly as to create something unforgettable. And the drop shadows, when she chooses them, are part of her repertoire.
So I agree with you that shadows can be, and maybe are often misused. But I think it would be a big mistake not to include this technique as part of a graphic designer's repertoire.
The only time I ever used a drop shadow with type was the masthead for the newsletter of a branding bureau. As I felt any design for a masthead could be regarded as a "brand" itself, I decided to virtually "cut out" the name of the news- letter into the page, using a drop shadow inside the character shapes. It really is the only time I thought it'd be adequate to use them.
Yeah, but the Artisanal isn't a dropshadow as such. What is that lovely line/shadow effect called?
I agree with you William, dropshadows can be used very well. My original context was more of a "slap a dropshadow on just for the hell of it" scenario. The default Photoslop ones are generally horrendous. All of your examples are superb. I knew that if I were to 'avoid them at all costs' it would be a mistake without some sort of investigation.
I think in my case as a young designer I was "taught" that drop-shadows and gradients look bad and shouldn't be considered. But, like writing instructors insisting on using proper grammar until you're good enough to break the rules, I think this thread contains a lot of great examples where shadowing and grades do enhance a piece because the designer knows how to do it well.
In general, I think it's probably better that one does not use drop-shadows because they are difficult to pull off tastefully. Fili, Simonson, and Parkinson are all masters who can pull it off.
A couple of years ago when I was watching the news I realized how a drop shadow could come in handy. Displayed in the corner of the screen was the time and tempurature in white with a black shadow. If it was only white, it would be nearly invisible, and only black would have been the same. That's the only time I've seen the effect put to good use.
Berkson's examples don't count because most of them aren't really "drop shadows" as we know them now. Contours seems like a good description. I'd explain myself better but it's difficult to type while holding a sleeping baby.
kris, it's just a sort of a half contour, if there's an actual name for that, please correct me.
i'm talking about the modern day blurred drop shadows as this conversation started. i'm not actually in to minimalism but more likely to modernism. the examples posted are well crafted, but still they are variants of styles in past centuries and can make good graphic design, but rarely a modern and lasting mark.
In his book 'Logo Font & Lettering Bible' Leslie Cabarga calls the effect used on the 'Artisanal' mark a 'relief drop shadow'. (p. 80)
All of his shadow styles (20+?) are done in Illustrator, though he does mention the photoshop blurry shadows. He warns against using Quark's shadows or outlines, as they "look ugly and amateurish". He also notes and shows how to correct some blunders in creating shadows.
Doyald Young, who doesn't seem to use shadow effects himself, in his 'Fonts & Logos' (a fabulous book) calls the effect in 'Artisanal' a "separated side shadow ...a Victorian device often used to suggest old-fashioned quality".
I think the basic rule with shadow effects has to do with intent and purpose. Putting a shadow on a letter or word takes it out the context of normal text and turns it into a picture of text. The text becomes a simulation of a physical object and is placed in the realm of illustration. To the naive designer or non-designer, it is an impressive effect. It's like it's suddenly become a real object instead of simple flat shapes.
I mostly use shadow effects to evoke period styles or to illustrate three-dimensional letterforms such as constructed signs. Of course, in the styles I'm evoking the shadow effects may have originally been used for the same reason that naive designers use them: It's flashy. But, when I use shadow effects, it's part of the arsenal of tools I use to evoke bygone eras. I have to admit, it looks flashy to me too, but I find it difficult to disassociate it from the look of vintage type and lettering.
The soft Photoshop-type shadow is a bit different from this because the effect is more photographic, a sort of faux 3-d effect, but the phenomenon of taking text out of context and making it pictoral still applies. I would only use it in an illustrative context.
There is also the practical use of shadows often seen on TV an in movies for text that has to appear over changing or moving images as an aid to readability (as in the example Isaac gave above). This is completely different from the illustrative use, although it is sometimes a factor in that too.
The thing to remember is that a shadow is not a substitute for a concept. Without a concept, it's just a pointless, flashy effect.
As mentioned above, drop shadows are (like many other options/filters in Photoshop, etc.) easy ways out that can look amateurish in the wrong hands. But saying that one should never use them -- that's a bit dogmatic, isn't it?
I, for one, am not afraid of shadow effects. I use them as part of my own arsenal of tools, but I use them not necessarily for nostalgic looks but for what suits the design problem at the moment. Often the problem is readability, and shadow can be a useful solution. The trick, like most tricks, is to make it so that you hardly notice the effect.
Paul, at the (old) site http://thebluedot.com/ if you go to their 'typographic' section you will see a comparison of different ways of putting type over graphics for the computer screen. They claim that it is most clear if you blur just around the area of the type, rather than use a shadow.
This was for a masthead, The Birmingham News (Alabama).
The dropshadow and the white edge help the name stand out as different from the busyness of the rest of thefront page (pdf) typography. Being blackletter wasn’t enough! The extra treatment also says “we’re important, this is us, this is the permanent part”, turning it into a lettered nameplate, rather than a piece of typesetting.
Sometimes dropshadow or glow is a good way to get the text to stand out on a varied contrast background. If it detracts from the text, then it is poorly used. If it adds readability, then it is OK, and if it can be done unnoticeably, all the better.
It seems the more I work with laying out text, the less special effects appeal to me when done just for the sake of effects.
Here is an example of a stroke added to “fontplay challenge” to help it stand out in a way that to me is cleaner than a drop shadow:
Anyway, in general, I find when I go back and view things I did a long time ago I am sickened by some of the special effects I used. So in my mind caution is advised. No effects (when possible) seem to stand the test of time better.
(disclaimer: this advice comes from someone who doesn’t really know what he is talking about but likes to contribute anyway)
: )
16 Make an old-school outline effect
Set some text in Illustrator 9 and select it using the arrow cursor. Set both the fill and outline to None. In the Appearance palette, add a new fill. This also adds an empty stroke. Set these to any colours you like. In the Stroke palette, make the stroke thicker and set its corner attribute to Rounded. In the Appearance palette, drag the stroke to below the fill, putting the stroke under the fill in the stacking order. In the Appearance palette, add a new, thicker stroke. Make sure it appears below the first stroke. By varying the thickness and colours of the two strokes, many different outline effects are possible. You can add more strokes for more effects.
17 Make a custom shadow effect
This trick requires Illustrator 10. Start from the double-stroke we created in Tip 16 and select the lower stroke in the Appearance palette. Choose Effect> Distort & Transform>Transform. In the dialog box that appears, set Move to Horizontal: 0.5 pt and Vertical: -0.5 pt. Also set Copies to greater than 0: the higher the number, the deeper the drop-shadow. The amount of offset (and therefore number of copies) depends on your target output resolution. For on-screen use, 0.5pt works well. Smaller offsets and higher numbers of copies are needed for higher resolution. Also, using a rounded corner on strokes helps.
Today alone, drop shadows and gradients have added 4 hours to our flow. Drop shadows and gradients used to only half-way bother me as a design “flair”—- until I had to start fixing them for print. Sigh.
Ah yes.. Adobe drop-shadows are bad for print. Especially since some RIPs have difficulties with transparency. I have seen dropshadows with large squares around them, because of bad transparency flattening. Always check your documents with Flattener Preview.
Who's Online:
There are currently 24 users and 130 guests online.
User login
New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
13.Dec.2004 6.55pm
The only time a drop shadow is OK with me is when it's behind a cut-out photo object isolated on top of a plain white background. But with type--no, never, please. I'm often getting into mini-confrontations with the art director at my work because he likes drop shadows (he thinks they add "depth," but I prefer flat things to stay flat). I consider shadow effects an unsatisfactory last-resort solution for when you need to set type on top of a busy photo background.
(Psst, don't tell anyone, but I usually tone down the effects in Photoshop *after* the A.D. has approved the design, and if he ever notices afterwards--so far he hasn't--my plan is to blame it on our laser printer or the photo house.)
I usually dislike gradients and gratuitous textures also. I guess it's all a matter of taste.
14.Dec.2004 4.21am
pray that drop shadow is going to be a big joke like lens flare was back in the days.
14.Dec.2004 6.42am
They can be useful (if done subtely) in interface design.
14.Dec.2004 6.49am
When dat kuva with all da line products had to be done,
they still were all moke-ups. I added drop shadows, layered
the effect and erased some no-sense zones. Accordind to my boss,
typography is mine, logotype by him. I enjoyed very much working
with him because he is horny with the color matters, he is really
a pro in photo-retouch. He lives and work in a beautiful castel
town called Castell'Arquato.
Ma toivoan :-)
Amen,
AS
Linea Beautic.pdf (139.5 k)
14.Dec.2004 9.59am
In some cases on the web, GUI drop shadows can be brilliant - in print it usually smacks of photoshop and looks novice. I think it can be done well, but usually it's just used as a contrived way to contrast the type against its background.
I think it depends more on the person laying out the type than the effect.
14.Dec.2004 10.06am
Oh, sorry, Kris, I just realized that maybe
your question was strictly about type.
Then I would use da dropshadow with a
Comic Sans light to increase the bouma !
http://www.paolofresu.it/ :-)
Best,
AS
14.Dec.2004 11.17am
If you can find my signature somewhere on my website
(www.as8.it) you can see I used it there, it seems to me
that the sign gets in a more 'natural' feeling.
Now that I think, I could design my site with a off-white paper.
AS
14.Dec.2004 11.35am
Well, the reason I ask is because at our weekly meeting the boss said that the signs we were making can be enhanced by either pinstripe borders or dropshadows, to give them that little something. I had an initial gut reaction of "no way", but thought about this ingrained prejudic e of mine and wondered if whether there was a place for them. I am still not really convinced
14.Dec.2004 11.53am
Leslie Cabarga in 'The Logo Font and Lettering Bible' has a chapter on 'Incredible Type Trix' with all kinds of 3-d effects, including drop shadows, block shadows, bevels etc. If I remember Letterror's 'Federal' has a lot of this also.
I don't think the question here is a 'yes' or 'no'. It should be rather where is it appropriate? Where will it add, where detract?
14.Dec.2004 12.05pm
Michael Schwab uses a gray outline ... although this might not be what you need ... I do like how he uses it and to great affect. Seems to me to be an elegant way to separate information.
http://www.michaelschwab.com/
Other artists that use outlines:
David Lance Goines: http://www.goines.net/poster_art.html
Mcray Magleby ... can't find a link
14.Dec.2004 1.35pm
there should be "a little something" without drop shadow or bevel effect. in my opinion it's just a cheap attempt of polishing your work..
keep it simple and functional.
peace.
14.Dec.2004 3.12pm
Mikael
14.Dec.2004 4.51pm
Yes, I just tactfully ignored that request.
14.Dec.2004 8.41pm
Kris, about one of 8 of Jim Parkinson's superb logos uses outlines or shadows or both. See them at his web site. These I think show that these techniques can be useful and effective, in the right hands, for the appropriate project.
Leslie Cabarga has many illustrations which use it, though you may not like their consciously retro style.
14.Dec.2004 9.23pm
Oh and a number of Louise Fili's astonishingly beautiful food and restaurant logos use drop shadows, as well as intricate treatments of the 'solid' of a letter. In her work, you can see particularly clearly how the shadow, when she uses it, is an integral part of the concept of the design.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case!
14.Dec.2004 11.35pm
i'm not saying that there's technically something wrong with louise fili's work, but it's closer to illustration than an effective or recognisable mark.
and what comes to jim parkinson's work, we're more likely talking about one colour contours. the question is does the contour or dropshadow make it more recognisable?
most of the cases i see that shadow or contour is an added value without a real function.
15.Dec.2004 12.43am
Your point is well taken Mikael. However ...
I don't think there's any question that shadows or contours
can be effective ways to enhance lettering. I think you acknowledge
that Mikael by using the word 'most' in the post above,
instead of 'all'.
So in some cases, the shadow or contour does add real function.
It's the job of the lettering artist to determine when
the shadow or contour helps the piece, and when
it's superfluous.
Besides Jim and Leslie ...
http://www.ms-studio.com/letteringdesign.html
http://www.michaeldoret.com/
http://www.letterror.com/
15.Dec.2004 6.03am
>an added value without a real function
Mikael, I don't think this argument really holds up to the examples I just linked to, as well as those that BJ has just done. For example, the Cromos logo of Jim Parkinson is very well drawn (a modified Futura), and then the red with white outline and black shadow give it a loudness and drama that it wouldn't otherwise have. Of course your personal taste might be something more classic and restrained, but I think it is hard to argue that a restrained style should be everywhere for everything.
I think you do have a point that tarting up a poorly drawn logo with effects is like the proverbial 'putting lipstick on a pig', but hey, lipstick on Marilyn Monroe looked pretty great. And it does on the well drawn 'Cromos' logo too.
On Louise Fili, part of her distinctive genius is integrating illustration and lettering so perfectly as to create something unforgettable. And the drop shadows, when she chooses them, are part of her repertoire.
So I agree with you that shadows can be, and maybe are often misused. But I think it would be a big mistake not to include this technique as part of a graphic designer's repertoire.
15.Dec.2004 7.59am
Seems like we're debating minimalism vs. decoration. Neither is right/wrong...just different schools of thought.
16.Dec.2004 12.59pm
Obviously a logo is not always used/lived as it is presented
on the design session. Or would you look at unframed paintings
on a red wall ?
As Dennis the Menace says after watching a film,
'He didn't really kiss her... they've got dropshadow for that
kind of stuff.'
http://fralenuvole.supereva.it/bacio%5B1%5D.jpg
AS
PS/
What about Cypress' logo ?
http://www.cypresshill.com/
Is that out of Graphic Design ?
What about Einstein year logo, does he deserves that ?
http://www.bundesregierung.de/Bild/large_742905/Einstein-year-logo.jpg
16.Dec.2004 1.33pm
The only time I ever used a drop shadow with type was the
masthead for the newsletter of a branding bureau. As I felt
any design for a masthead could be regarded as a "brand"
itself, I decided to virtually "cut out" the name of the news-
letter into the page, using a drop shadow inside the character
shapes. It really is the only time I thought it'd be adequate
to use them.
16.Dec.2004 6.02pm
I dislike most of the drop shadows I see and try to be very careful with them, but now I
16.Dec.2004 7.05pm
>The only time I ever used a drop shadow with type was the
masthead for the newsletter
I think all of Jim Parkinson's stuff are mastheads, and they also separate from the body.
In Louise Fili, this one is used with illustration to evoke a warm old-time Victorian look.
And this one uses it in a logo that is a fascinating 'old fashioned modernism' kind of look.
And here there is less specific historical reference, but it is all beautifully balanced and just works great.
Don't tell me that she has messed up. She is the goddess of graphics; she can do no wrong.
Of course, for both Parkinson and Fili, the shadowed logos are a small minority of their work. Still, they can do great stuff with them.
16.Dec.2004 7.33pm
Yeah, but the Artisanal isn't a dropshadow as such. What is that lovely line/shadow effect called?
I agree with you William, dropshadows can be used very well. My original context was more of a "slap a dropshadow on just for the hell of it" scenario. The default Photoslop ones are generally horrendous. All of your examples are superb. I knew that if I were to 'avoid them at all costs' it would be a mistake without some sort of investigation.
Happy dropshadowing!
16.Dec.2004 8.18pm
I think in my case as a young designer I was "taught" that drop-shadows and gradients look bad and shouldn't be considered. But, like writing instructors insisting on using proper grammar until you're good enough to break the rules, I think this thread contains a lot of great examples where shadowing and grades do enhance a piece because the designer knows how to do it well.
In general, I think it's probably better that one does not use drop-shadows because they are difficult to pull off tastefully. Fili, Simonson, and Parkinson are all masters who can pull it off.
16.Dec.2004 8.18pm
A couple of years ago when I was watching the news I realized how a drop shadow could come in handy. Displayed in the corner of the screen was the time and tempurature in white with a black shadow. If it was only white, it would be nearly invisible, and only black would have been the same. That's the only time I've seen the effect put to good use.
Berkson's examples don't count because most of them aren't really "drop shadows" as we know them now. Contours seems like a good description. I'd explain myself better but it's difficult to type while holding a sleeping baby.
16.Dec.2004 10.16pm
> she can do no wrong.
No comment.
hhp
16.Dec.2004 11.44pm
kris, it's just a sort of a half contour, if there's an actual name for that, please correct me.
i'm talking about the modern day blurred drop shadows as this conversation started.
i'm not actually in to minimalism but more likely to modernism. the examples posted are well crafted, but still they are variants of styles in past centuries and can make good graphic design, but rarely a modern and lasting mark.
when talking about retro graphic design, one of my favorites are chris ware:
chris ware comic one
chris ware comic two
chris ware poster
(well, the first two are comics but they fill the rules of graphic design)
17.Dec.2004 6.46am
>What is that lovely line/shadow effect called?
In his book 'Logo Font & Lettering Bible' Leslie Cabarga calls the effect used on the 'Artisanal' mark a 'relief drop shadow'. (p. 80)
All of his shadow styles (20+?) are done in Illustrator, though he does mention the photoshop blurry shadows. He warns against using Quark's shadows or outlines, as they "look ugly and amateurish". He also notes and shows how to correct some blunders in creating shadows.
Doyald Young, who doesn't seem to use shadow effects himself, in his 'Fonts & Logos' (a fabulous book) calls the effect in 'Artisanal' a "separated side shadow ...a Victorian device often used to suggest old-fashioned quality".
17.Dec.2004 9.20am
I think the basic rule with shadow effects has to do with intent and purpose. Putting a shadow on a letter or word takes it out the context of normal text and turns it into a picture of text. The text becomes a simulation of a physical object and is placed in the realm of illustration. To the naive designer or non-designer, it is an impressive effect. It's like it's suddenly become a real object instead of simple flat shapes.
I mostly use shadow effects to evoke period styles or to illustrate three-dimensional letterforms such as constructed signs. Of course, in the styles I'm evoking the shadow effects may have originally been used for the same reason that naive designers use them: It's flashy. But, when I use shadow effects, it's part of the arsenal of tools I use to evoke bygone eras. I have to admit, it looks flashy to me too, but I find it difficult to disassociate it from the look of vintage type and lettering.
The soft Photoshop-type shadow is a bit different from this because the effect is more photographic, a sort of faux 3-d effect, but the phenomenon of taking text out of context and making it pictoral still applies. I would only use it in an illustrative context.
There is also the practical use of shadows often seen on TV an in movies for text that has to appear over changing or moving images as an aid to readability (as in the example Isaac gave above). This is completely different from the illustrative use, although it is sometimes a factor in that too.
The thing to remember is that a shadow is not a substitute for a concept. Without a concept, it's just a pointless, flashy effect.
17.Dec.2004 11.36am
As mentioned above, drop shadows are (like many other options/filters in Photoshop, etc.) easy ways out that can look amateurish in the wrong hands. But saying that one should never use them -- that's a bit dogmatic, isn't it?
I, for one, am not afraid of shadow effects. I use them as part of my own arsenal of tools, but I use them not necessarily for nostalgic looks but for what suits the design problem at the moment. Often the problem is readability, and shadow can be a useful solution. The trick, like most tricks, is to make it so that you hardly notice the effect.
17.Dec.2004 1.17pm
Are the shadows in Underware's recent Bello hoaky?
http://www.underware.nl/site2/index.php3?id1=bello&id2=words
hhp
17.Dec.2004 1.27pm
Hrant, as Mark pointed out they're illustrative. They have their place, just don't set a paragraph of them in any point type.
17.Dec.2004 3.07pm
>Are the shadows in Underware's recent Bello hoaky?
Yes. They don't work for me. They should have had Fredrik around to 'just say no.'
Where should open type stop, and just leave it to other designers to do variation and decoration as needed? I think they found a place.
17.Dec.2004 5.41pm
billyb, I stand corrected. Thanks for the definitions.
18.Dec.2004 12.59pm
i think i used drop shadows successfully in this example...
Lemme know whatcha think of this:
18.Dec.2004 1.42pm
Paul, at the (old) site http://thebluedot.com/ if you go to their 'typographic' section you will see a comparison of different ways of putting type over graphics for the computer screen. They claim that it is most clear if you blur just around the area of the type, rather than use a shadow.
Check it out and let us know what you think.
28.Mar.2006 11.35am
28.Mar.2006 12.05pm
aha! excellent.
28.Mar.2006 1.14pm
This was for a masthead, The Birmingham News (Alabama).
The dropshadow and the white edge help the name stand out as different from the busyness of the rest of thefront page (pdf) typography. Being blackletter wasn’t enough! The extra treatment also says “we’re important, this is us, this is the permanent part”, turning it into a lettered nameplate, rather than a piece of typesetting.
28.Mar.2006 1.19pm
Sometimes dropshadow or glow is a good way to get the text to stand out on a varied contrast background. If it detracts from the text, then it is poorly used. If it adds readability, then it is OK, and if it can be done unnoticeably, all the better.
It seems the more I work with laying out text, the less special effects appeal to me when done just for the sake of effects.
Here is an example of a stroke added to “fontplay challenge” to help it stand out in a way that to me is cleaner than a drop shadow:
http://www.fontplay.com/images2/pricealphabrokesfwillam.jpg
This dropshadow might be overdone?:
http://www.fontplay.com/images2/maximilianantiqua.jpg
Anyway, in general, I find when I go back and view things I did a long time ago I am sickened by some of the special effects I used. So in my mind caution is advised. No effects (when possible) seem to stand the test of time better.
(disclaimer: this advice comes from someone who doesn’t really know what he is talking about but likes to contribute anyway)
: )
24.Aug.2007 11.37am
Just found (on this page Computer Arts - Type tips) these two tips by Mark:
16 Make an old-school outline effect
Set some text in Illustrator 9 and select it using the arrow cursor. Set both the fill and outline to None. In the Appearance palette, add a new fill. This also adds an empty stroke. Set these to any colours you like. In the Stroke palette, make the stroke thicker and set its corner attribute to Rounded. In the Appearance palette, drag the stroke to below the fill, putting the stroke under the fill in the stacking order. In the Appearance palette, add a new, thicker stroke. Make sure it appears below the first stroke. By varying the thickness and colours of the two strokes, many different outline effects are possible. You can add more strokes for more effects.
17 Make a custom shadow effect
This trick requires Illustrator 10. Start from the double-stroke we created in Tip 16 and select the lower stroke in the Appearance palette. Choose Effect> Distort & Transform>Transform. In the dialog box that appears, set Move to Horizontal: 0.5 pt and Vertical: -0.5 pt. Also set Copies to greater than 0: the higher the number, the deeper the drop-shadow. The amount of offset (and therefore number of copies) depends on your target output resolution. For on-screen use, 0.5pt works well. Smaller offsets and higher numbers of copies are needed for higher resolution. Also, using a rounded corner on strokes helps.
27.Aug.2007 8.18pm
Today alone, drop shadows and gradients have added 4 hours to our flow. Drop shadows and gradients used to only half-way bother me as a design “flair”—- until I had to start fixing them for print. Sigh.
28.Aug.2007 8.11am
Ah yes.. Adobe drop-shadows are bad for print. Especially since some RIPs have difficulties with transparency. I have seen dropshadows with large squares around them, because of bad transparency flattening. Always check your documents with Flattener Preview.