forever together - crit.

typ01134's picture

Hi,

I started to work up a font ive been sketching in my moleskine for a while now..

I'm fairly happy so far (only a few hours in) but its early days... So I'm sticking it up for you guys to tear into.
I have thick skin - so don't hold back.

I would like to create a really solid, corporate, sans serif, and i guess this is the boldish weight.

any thoughts? like / don't like .. stuff i need to look at..

for me the 'h' 'm' and 'n' aren't working yet, and the 'e' is close but not quite.

I'd hugely appreciate any input.

Many thanks in advance.

Jamie

AttachmentSize
gallagher.pdf59.65 KB
nmerriam's picture

The first thing that I notice is the unevenness of visual weight between characters. It looks like you're relying too much on making sure the measurement is the same rather than making sure the visual weight is the same. Like in the last line, "forever", the r's and v look much heavier than the o and e's. The same thing is happening with the letter sizes -- the o, because it doesn't have any decoration, looks smaller than the other letters. It looks like you do have the curves overhanging the median and baseline a bit, but you just need to balance that out more for each letter so that the positive and negative space optically balance out to look the same size.

There is a lot of indecision going on between mechanical shapes and more tapered humanist forms -- the letter h really stands out in "together" because it's so mechanical, but you said you're still figuring out some of the letters. But on the letter t, for example, it looks very top-heavy because the top is so mechanical, but the bottom is more soft and tapered. I would expect that t to fall over if I left it alone :)

i cant delete my username's picture

The bottoms of the g (descender) and the e don't feel like they match the rest of the typeface, as well as the descender of the j (maybe closer to the t?) The curves on the top of the m feel a little uneven to me. It may be an optical issue. They seem a little flat on the upper right, and the stroke looks a little thick on the upper left. The stems of the g, b, q, p, d look thick in comparison to the bowls, or maybe the issue is vice versa. Overall, I like the simplicity and the short height of all the ascenders (i, l, f, d, etc all the same height). The proportions seem well balanced to me.

typ01134's picture

great feedback.

re weights - im looking at that first, i think ill lighten the whole thing slightly, adn try to balance that r/v/e/ weighting issue.

on a design / style issue.. I am wrestling with the balance of mechanical vs the more 'humanist tapered' forms. my objective is to create something very 'neutral' and with the simplicity of quite geometric shapes - almost removing any 'decoration' but i don't want it to have that look of a mac cut font, with copy and pasted flipped shapes.

I think chipmans comment about the e and g is spot on, but it highlights my dilemma.. i had cut the g to match the j, but it made the font too individual and gave it too much of a visual hook.
I like the cheeky friendly look that the g ad e give the font, but am reluctant to cut other letters more in this vein as i'm worried ill lose the simple neutrality of the a/b/d/f/i/j/k/l..(which cature more of the real character im aiming for)

ill try pushing it both ways and post another pdf in a day or so.

thanks again for your time looking at this for me.

Jamie

typ01134's picture

HI.

i've made some amends - taking it in a more geometric direction, removing the tapering etc...

any thoughts?

Jamie

typ01134's picture

HI.

i've made some amends - taking it in a more geometric direction, removing the tapering etc...

any thoughts?

Jamie

cerulean's picture

Your o is getting closer, but the round bowls of a/b/d/g/p/q are still rather light.

sim's picture

Some comments. The f seems too high compare to the d and h. Also, the shoulder of the m, n and bottom left of the u where the stems join the curve seem unfit together. The bottom of the q are too long compare with the p. Keep going.

typ01134's picture

ive tweaked the 'f' and a few other characters - and now have a complete (though not final) lowercase..

any thoughts. (please excuse kerning - im fitting this in around a stack of work at the moment)

all comments gratefully received. - my biggest concerns at the moment are the m,n,h,u (sim picked this up a little while ago) any advice, i can seem to get them to look right.?

Many Thanks
J

AGL's picture

i dont know, but the "e" seems to me like it doesn't match with the other characteres. im no gig but looks to me like that. If you like the "e" as is - that's ok too.

sim's picture

I think the problem with the e is the tail. Compare the c, g, the s and the e.

eliason's picture

The straight-to-curve transitions need some attention as well (h, m, n, u). t, too, which looks like it's going to fall over.The bend of the y's descender also jumps out to my eye.

This has a lot of Johnston Underground to it - maybe reviewing that face's solutions would provide some inspiration.

EDIT: sorry, I just realized I'm repeating a lot of stuff that has already been said.

typ01134's picture

ive made some revisions - e j h m u n and k .

im getting to a point where i might go for the upper and numbers - then revisit the lowercase.
the curve straight transitions are getting better, but not sure they are quite there.

ill take a look at johnston Underground - thanks for the tip.

i kind of like the y and t (though i see what you mean about it falling over.

latest revisions below

litera's picture

No no no...

Your letters differ in stroke and style way too much. Don't go to number and UC yet because your lc is still far from being finished.

Your last revision is better when it comes to even stroke width but you're still having problems. Stroke joins are not ok. "a" and "r" have problematic joins. Some double storey letters have too heavy stems: p, t, h, k... k is also too heavy.

And what's up with "q"'s slant cut stem? No other letter has it and if it does have a slanted cut it doesn't have it up to this extent.

"f", "t", "j", "g", "r", "y" have different style. Theri termination is too different.

So please don't hurry to numbers and UC.

typ01134's picture

ive started again and cut a few characters.

am i going in the right direction?

thanks
J

typ01134's picture

please ingore last post -

ive now re-worked the lowercase ( the 'e' stands out a bit not sure whats up with it, and im a little worried that the widths aren;t ok.

im thinking the h, n, etc are too compressed compared the the width of the a. b. c etc.?

any thoughts.?

thanks
Jamie

AGL's picture

The "e" is perfect now. Good job :-)

Bendy's picture

I like what you've done with the t, though perhaps make the crossbar a bit wider, and the tail the same. I think k's waist needs to slide down the stem a bit more.
Look at your c and f. The stroke ends at a different angle. They need to harmonise more.
You have a nice tilt on the top of the ascenders, try repeating this at the bottom of the p and q.
m and n look the right kind of width. v looks narrow though.

One thing to remember is that the letters need to be read together, so it's useful to have a preview window open showing words whilst you're moving nodes around.

If you want to start on numbers or uppercase, i don't think that's a bad idea...it might help you firm up which direction the font is going in, and allow you to come back to the lowercase a bit fresher. On the other hand, it could be too difficult until you know what shapes are likely to be involved and just be confusing! People like to work in different ways.

Syndicate content Syndicate content