New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
Lamond
Posted by 50pointtype in
29 Jul 2011 — 2:24pm
29 Jul 2011 — 2:24pm
Your critiques appreciated on this one. I'm fond of text faces that manage to pull off readability with some unconventional angles and stroke intersections... so that's what I'm trying to do here. You can see from some of my sketches that I'm visualizing strokes that fold over themselves to create a little tension in the curves and make for interesting serifs, feet, etc. This is my first go at a text face so let me know if this is moving in the right direction.
User login
Support our Sponsors
2 Oct 2011 — 8:19am
Thanks. Maybe you could illustrate what you mean on the /n d p h/ etc.? To my untrained eye, all I see is an arc, bending over to meet the leg, straightening out at the end. (on the /n/)
The /d/ doesn't have that same straight segment, but I feel it doesn't need to be exactly the same. Or does it?
3 Oct 2011 — 7:02am
I would advise you to remove the straight part in /n/ and make it more similar to /d/. The straight part appears to be bending upwards a little bit.
5 Oct 2011 — 5:36pm
Ok, I'm going to throw a wrench into things again.
Here is what I feel I was originally trying to do in my first sketches, but had to go through this critique process to figure it out. The abrupt curve-meets-corner aesthetic was lost along the way. Thoughts?
6 Oct 2011 — 6:38pm
With this new direction, I'm loosing the feeling of the forms folding over themselves (as in your sketches in the first post), but maybe that's just my eye that sees it this way.
7 Oct 2011 — 1:36am
I second James' comment. The new ones are interesting, mind you, but colder and less organic.
9 Oct 2011 — 10:32am
I agree with the two above comments. This isn't a problem though.
Forget about the cuts. With the direction your taking now, elegance is the keyword. The cuts would have worked with the more robust older version, but not with the new one.
Keep going!
9 Oct 2011 — 7:23pm
So...I'm on the road, and I had to sketch this out after seeing your comments. I guess I should take a little time to explore this, just to see what comes of it.
[Yeah. Comfort Inn. Livin' large.]
12 Oct 2011 — 7:09pm
Ok, that didn't work. Moving on...
I hated to do it but I changed the serifs. It was just messing with the text flow. There's also some rounded corners on the serif transitions and in other places. Hopefully it softens up the "hard edge" feel just a little. The /a/ is a little unconventional. Would like to see what others think. Thanks.
Lamond 34
13 Oct 2011 — 11:36am
I like it!
As for the /a/, maybe make the upper left part of bowl thinner (like the /c/). As it is right now, it seems a little dark in text settings.
15 Oct 2011 — 2:55am
X becomes thick at right top.
Leg of R is weak
Why the gap in K? It looks a bit forced. Compare with lowercase k.
/e/ and /c/ are too thin at bottom horizontal part. Compare with d.
Joints (Where bowl meats stem) are too thick. The part where the bottom of the bowl in d meets the stem, should have about the same thickness as the thinnest part in o.
Compare crossbars in t and f.
h m n u might be a tiny bit wide.
Thins in v w x y k are too thick.
g doesn't fit anymore. It looks a bit too quirky.
r could be narrower. The terminal doesn't have to point downwards so much.
/a/ looks a bit aggresive to me, but that might just be me.
The tittles on i and j could go higher.
I'm not so sure about the inktrap-like cuts at joints (a, b, d, h, etc.). They are a bit inconsistent. Compare b with h. I'm not sure if it needs those inktrap-like cuts in the first place. It already has enough character without them IMO.
Caps are allmost there, lowercase need work :-)
Cheers,
Jasper
17 Oct 2011 — 7:18pm
Notes:
-greater contrast
-revised terminals on /a/c/f/r/ with matching shapes on /j/y/ and /g/.
-everything slightly narrowed
-/K/ has the gap because I like it. /k/ now has it too. :)
-I'm pretty set on the joints on /a/b/h/ etc.
-new /g/
-/a/ is "less aggressive"
Questions:
-should /s/ have the same terminals as /a/c/f/r/?
-Is there a rule of thumb on how far this type of /J/ should descend below the baseline?
Lamond 37
18 Oct 2011 — 6:37am
Also: reduced the angle on the terminals of /s/z/C/E/F/G/L/S/T/Z/. (Not reflected in the image above.)
19 Oct 2011 — 2:31am
The bottom left curve in g should be stronger.
/r/ still has the same problem. Look at as many different /r/'s from good fonts, make a couple variants of your own, and choose the best one. Currently, the terminal points down in a way that makes it look sad and take in too much space.
/c/ and /e/ still have the same problem. Compare to bottom of d.
Curves at the bottom of /y/ might benefit from making them a little stronger.
ear of /g/ is a little short IMO.
Almost there!
19 Oct 2011 — 11:44am
@Jasper: what needs to be stronger in /g/ is, IMO, the middle horizontal and not the bottom left curve, which needs work, but not more weight.
Start by tapering the thin (the root of the arch) of your /r/ (it is ofttimes drawn thinner that that of the /n/, etc.), then perhaps take Jasper's advice, but being careful not to lose overall style.
The top of /f/ could be a little thinner.
Keep it up! ;^)
19 Oct 2011 — 4:59pm
/g/ and /r/. Still working on the rest.
Everything is starting to look a little light to me. Should I make the thicks thicker?
19 Oct 2011 — 5:47pm
/e/c/y/
Hopefully the /y/ looks stronger? Not exactly sure about how to interpret that. Good call on the /e/ and /c/.
20 Oct 2011 — 7:57am
When I said 'stronger' I meant to extend the control points (creating fuller/stronger curves), for both the bottom of y and the bottom-left of g. The bottom of e and c could still go thicker IMO.
And, yes. Making the thicks thicker is probably a good idea. However, my method would be to wait untill you've finished the bold/black and then use interpolation to create the right colour in the regular.
/g/ and /r/ are much better now!
20 Oct 2011 — 10:23am
So like this? It's umm... subtle.
I'm going to have to go out and celebrate getting that /r/ done.
20 Oct 2011 — 1:33pm
In the picture you show, the right part of the pink line is good. Take it a bit further and then do the same as what you've done on the right side, on the left side. Don't change the stroke thickness, just change the curve.
Cheers on the r!
21 Oct 2011 — 8:51am
And another...
22 Oct 2011 — 6:26am
Yes. That's it.
In the r: The node directly under the node at the very top of the terminal (got it?), could go down about 10-20 units. This will make the terminal larger and also give it a more horizontal direction.
Time for the bold/black, perhaps?
24 Oct 2011 — 5:26pm
Indeed it is. But here's the slightly thicker alterations that I talked about earlier. I'm happy with this weight.
So with this [mostly] settled, I'm going to end this long thread and start a new one after diving into some new weights.
Thanks all.