Welcome to Typophile
Please Sign in.
That my latest font. Any comments is welcome. Thanks.
i like this work… i only see certain noise in the lc-g (y) ODA
It doesn’t wok… Maybe a GIF…
I like this alot. I am noticing that the weight of the strokes on your curved letters appear heavier than your straight strokes (uppercase G,Q). I agree that the “g” needs some tweaking also. The upper stroke on the lowercase “r” seems a little wimpy also. With some tweaking it will be nice!
Cool. This reminds me of a typeface used by David Carson in his ‘Revised Edition’. IIRC, it is called Neulin Sans, and it was designed by Miles Newlin. Anyway, I like the ‘rawness’ in this. Quick comments: - a: nice, did you try a smaller bowl? - g: it may be disturbing at display sizes, but I think it’ll work great at small sizes. - r: too narrow; - M, S: too wide; - there are some weight inconsistencies… for example, C, G and S are too dark; - the ﬁgures are ‘technically’ ﬁne, but they don’t ﬁt the style. Saludos!
Nice! Some apparent weight imbalances. The “g” doesn’t work. The “Q” could be braver. Descenders a bit long. hhp
Nice one Ramiro P, R and B looks little narrow in the eye for me. J too. Maybe E and F middle hoorizontal is a little optical down. S middle is too bold. Ale
Hi Ramiro, I like this font a lot. As usual it can always use a few changes here and there. I think S is a bit wide and also a bit heavy on the top. terminals are a bit too bulky for my taste. LC “g” is unusual and perhaps my favorite character. the new LC. “g” is much nicer than the older version on your website.
Hi Ramiro. This is really very nice. I would deﬁnitly use it. Here are some comments in addition to what’s been said. P vs R: Are the bowls the same size? The P should be slightly larger (north to south) than the R. r: Lower the join some for color, and add width as Eduardo suggests. E vs F: The middle bar looks to be at the same height. The F should be a bit lower (in this case, I’d raise the E a bit) 3: I’d bring in the middle a bit (on the left side). It’s hanging out a little far. Trapazoid Problems: As I’ve said in other posts, most of the letters should ﬁt in a trapazoid that is wider at the base than the top. That way they look balanced and stable. There are several glyphs that have this trouble in your alphabet. S: As Ole mentioned. I’d bring in the top left and top right. s: Similar but to a lesser degree. Mostly on the top right. a: Bring the top left in a little bit. Looking forward to seeing more. Randy
Thanks a lot, guys. Your comments are really useful. I am working too in a extra bold version. And I made some changes in the ‘g’.
Hi Ramiro, The extra bold looks nice! I noticed 2 very small details: With the m it is clear that you made it from an n because the ﬁnal branch joins before the middle one has ﬁnished curving. I tried to illustrate how you could reconﬁgure the branches to eliminate this small problem. With the b we get really detailed. This is another one of those pesky optical illusions. The stem appears to get thicker below where the bowl joins the stem. It is even more noticable in the extra bold version. To compensate, shave oﬀ a little bit. Oh, also the extra bold a and s beak terminals look a little heavy. I would thin them so they look the same as the spurs on the m, r, n etc. Cheers, Randy
Well, I have been working in the corrections. Please, again, any comment is welcome. Thanks in advance.
Quick comments: if this is intended to work at 9 pts, it should be wider. And the @ looks odd. Make it shorter (the @ should be shorter than the caps), and also make the inner ‘a’ one-storey.
Have you changed your vertical proportions? They were better before, especially for smallish setting (9 pt). And for small sizes, besides the narrowness being a problem it’s also too light (although the spacing is nice and loose). I suggest shooting for 11-12 point instead (in which case you need to tighten it up though). But even so, I like the feel of this — really nice. We need a contemporary replacement for Caecilia. The “a” is too bulky. The “g” is too mannered. It’s almost like Formata’s (which I like), so maybe just emulate that. But try a diagonal ear. The “J” I’d either make descending, or give it more width. The “M” is a bit narrow. The “L” and “T” a bit wide. Yeah, the “@” needs work. I might try some serifs on some numerals. hhp
Hrant, I didn’t change the proportions, only the values of ascender and descenders in relation with the M square, so now the typeface looks a little bigger in the same size. That’s all. Yeah, the regular version is pretty light, but I’m gonna do interpolations, so I tought about future masters. I like to think the details in a light way… it’s harder. Thanks!
When I say “vertical proportions” I mean the relative size of the three zones — so you have in eﬀect changed the proportions. Speciﬁcally, I think your descenders are way too long now. hhp