Jenkins

matt_bluett's picture

This is something I've been playing around with. It's by no means anywhere near being finished, but it does have some interesting features. I have spotted heaps of changes i would like make, but I feel I should get some feed back before I get ahead of myself. Appreciate any feedback

Cheers


application/pdf
JENKINS.pdf (22.0 k)

designalchemy's picture

I like this design a lot. bowl on "R' could be bigger and hang lower (as illustrated in second "R") . shorten center horizontal on "E". (as illustrated in first "E"). Btw 'R" could be smoother but working quickly in photoshop without beziers can look a bit rough as shown.

jenkin

kris's picture

Ahh, "ashton" (if that is your real name) strikes
once again into the heart of subtle quirks! Has
potential mate, but a few minor adjustments:


application/octet-stream
Jenkins (2.4 k)




The joins on your M, N, V, W are too thick,
they are visually distracting. Try thinning
these a bit, or slapping in some traps
to balance. I agree with ole about the e,
and the R needs something done, looks
like it has steeped in a mince pie and is
leaping back. I think the S is a bit wobbly
in regards to stroke weight as well.

here is a good link for hints on spacing,
which will inevitably help with the overall
design:

http://briem.ismennt.is/2/2.3.5a/2.3.5.01.spacing.htm

By the way, is it sweet to show my stuff to the
man? Or is it a pain in the backside for him?

kris.

hrant's picture

Traps are not slapped on, they are woven in. ;-)

hhp

neuroman's picture

Wow, such a beauty...eager to see its specimen!!!

matt_bluett's picture

Hey, Ive been a bit busy to really get stuck into this but here is something to look at. The arrows indicate the new characters.Ive straightened the bowl as suggested by Ole and fiddled with the trapping on the M. This is still really rough as all the strokes are different widths. I will fix this in good tme.

Keen to get some suggestions
Cheers


application/pdfBits
JENKINS BITS.pdf (24.4 k)

ebensorkin's picture

The new M is hard to judge outside the context of other letters but in the abstract it does look better.

The R seems better too - it is starting to remind me of the logo for rolls-royce.

aquatoad's picture

Hi Ashton,

Your M is displaying a common problem: The Flat Point.
In an effort to get the dark spots out of the tight angles it is tempting to make the joint very wide. In the end it is a balancing act. The goal is to make it look like the points are the same width as the stem or smaller, while keeping the joins free of clogging. You have four weapons to fight with:

1. The widening the join (as you've done)
2. The widening the whole glyph (opens the angles)
3. Subtle tapering of stems (opens the angles)
4. Trapping

In the following example I've used less of 1 and more of 4. The darker the weight, the more gymnastics will be required for even color. This glyph is pretty light and maybe could survive with no trapping and a bit more #2. How you mix the weapons is part or your thumbprint on the font.

hrant's picture

Nice, Randy!
The "M" in fact is the trickiest UC glyph for me - although as you show it's mostly a "mechanical" problem - nothing like the organic intractability of the lc "g", by far the hardest glyph in Latin (at least in its binocular form).

hhp

Syndicate content Syndicate content