New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
Critique my script font
Posted by chillypepper in
31 Dec 2006 — 4:31pm
31 Dec 2006 — 4:31pm
I'm really liking this one, sans the 'o' 'r' and 's', its still got work to do but wanted to see what ya'll thought so far, thanks!
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| scriptry.png | 42.54 KB |
User login
Support our Sponsors
31 Dec 2006 — 6:01pm
Looks pretty good to me so far, but I'm sure others with more authority in inspecting the curves will have more to say about that than I.
The internal up-hooks in the h, k, m, and n are pretty distracting to me, as they interrupt the flow of what one expects to see as a single stroke. Likewise with the top loops on b, d, h, k, and l, though it seems more of a stylistic decision than the afforementioned up-hooks. At least by the way I learned cursive, the connecting stroke from the b should come from the top, similar to the o and v, so this one looks a bit off to me.
Are your connecting strokes attached before or after the letters?
1 Jan 2007 — 7:53am
Looks nice, the general shapes and style of the script.
I think you might let the bottom of the g connect to the next character just like it does with the j. I agree with Jason Pagura that the connection of the b should be on top.
The s is a bit too thin.
1 Jan 2007 — 3:19pm
the x is a little off, as well as your noted o, r, & s. perhaps it's just too harsh in contrast to the rest of your strokes.
1 Jan 2007 — 5:02pm
Heres an updated pic, theres still a lot of issues to work out. I initially wanted them all to connect, but I don't think that will work. Does the "br" of "brown" look ok withought being connected? Does the "s" work or would a loop in it (blue) look better
1 Jan 2007 — 6:35pm
The b not connecting doesn't really bother me.
I like the looped s better, although they both work. (alternate?)
3 Jan 2007 — 4:48pm
The lowercase feels pretty solid now, I'm now beginning uppercase. I'm still debating those uphooks on the "m" and "h" type letters, anything else seem in need ot tweaking?
4 Jan 2007 — 11:39am
The l could be more open, like the top loop of your f, but that's just my opinion. It works the way you have it.
4 Jan 2007 — 1:06pm
I think the 'h', 'k', 'm', and 'n' don't need the little hooks on their first strokes. Rounding them (like the top of 'u') might look better.
If you're really worried about the 'b' not connecting, you could try making it look like your 'v' with an ascender.
Overall, this is a really fun and tasty script. I like the direction you're taking with the caps 'A' as well.
- Lex
5 Jan 2007 — 9:58am
"... you could try making it look like your 'v' with an ascender"
That is actually a good point I think. That would make the b look better imo.
22 Jul 2007 — 9:54pm
i agree with the v into a b point - good idea...
i just wanted to say that this looks really great and would love to know when you release it... cheers - sye :)
8 Feb 2009 — 3:48pm
did anything ever happen with this idea?
17 Feb 2009 — 8:04am
Hey chillypepper!
Good work!
Thers's go my humble opinion:
I believe that there are some forms that do not get along between them, if one watches the system as a whole.
The stroke modulations and its relation with a pen are strange in "A".
There are thickenings and refinings where it must not have them (c,g,z,x, etc). Counterforms are unbalanced in some letters (f,z).
The final strokes (that small hook) of (h,k,m,n) I would make them subtler.
And finally, it seems to me that the "x" and "z" deserves a redesign. "z" looks like it has a big head and "x" seems not to be part of this group.
Sorry about my english, hope I has been clear...
Best regards!