Chris, have you tried 1/2 degree? ‘Syntax’ has that,and it might work for you. Hrant, in the thread that Steve linked, argued that in some range, and it may include the 1 degree, there was an ambiguity that we switch in interpreting as leaning or not. With Syntax you don’t notice the lean, but just feel some dynamism.
I think the light version is very elegant. Sans with a touch of engraving. Of course, I think it too would beneﬁt from a slight slant. The only characters that didn’t quite look right are the (double) quotation marks. However, I’m at a loss to describe what I would do diﬀerently, or even what exactly the problem is.
William, I will try the 1/2 degree. I think the 1 degree is too much—especially at larger sizes. I am still not sold on any slant yet. I am just letting it simmer in my eye for now. I didn’t see the back-lean that Steve saw so it is hard for me to judge. I am the kind of person who relies heavily on my eye rather than any kind of set of standards. This makes it hard for me to correct a problem that I don’t readily see. I am open to my human failings though and will give it a try. Steve, The quotes may be just an issue of spacing. It might make it look a bit dark as I have it. I think I will try to nudge them a tad further apart. Thanks for your help, ChrisL
I am posting PDFs of Leporello Regular and Light slanted 1/2 degree. Also—Steve, I spaced the double quotes a tad. ChrisL
Please refer to http://studweb.euv-frankfurt-o.de/twardoch/f/en/typo/ogonek/stroke.html and try to change the stroke ends of Lshash to vertical.
Thanks Robert, I appreciate your help. ChrisL
I think 1/2 a degree is much more likely to give the eﬀect you want. One degree is probably in the barfogenic zone*, so to speak. * A term borrrowed from computer animation, where frame rates that are high enough (above ~1/15) are percieved as motion, those low enough (below ~1/8) are percieved as individual images, and anything in between actually makes you physically nauseous. hhp
>…One degree is probably in the barfogenic zone*< LOL!!! I agree and like the term as well. ChrisL
I have ﬁnally completed the “bold” version complete with diacritics and am attaching a PDF for comment. (sigh of relief) ChrisL
Again, nice job. The letterspacing looks a bit cramped for my tastes, though.
I think it’s actually working better in Bold! Just the join of the “k” is too much — maybe mimic the UC form. hhp
In a few days fury, I have completed the “Leporello Black” weight and am posting a PDF here for comment. One of these days I am going to have to start thinking about how to release it and what foundries might be interested. ChrisL
Hey, the darker this thing gets the better it looks! Those caps especially are mighty juicy. hhp
Thanks Hrant. I am still going to tey tinkering with the lc “k”. ChrisL
Chris, as I said early in the thread, I found this alphabet as having too much variation in it. Your black version has changed the bent stems eﬀectively into serifs, which for me work much more harmoniously. My guess would be that if you worked backwards and did the lighter weights with a similar treatment, you would have a result that would be more harmonious, and have more use. Two things still stick out to me as awkward. The ‘k’ having the serif go the opposite way from the b and h I don’t see the visual logic in. Also the arm on the r seems too heavy or droopy or something. A lot of successful faces, I have read, have started out very ‘far out’, and then the designers have pulled back into a more conventional direction, until they had a more conventional alphabet, but with a distinctive ﬂavor. Because type design is in my view by nature a very conservative ﬁeld (unlike science), I think this is the wiser way to go. But of course I am just one pair of eyes, and not professional ones at that.
William, Thanks for your thoughts. I actually started the lighter weights that way and found the serifs too heavy. I will give it some more thought now that some time has gone by and I am starting to get a better understanding of FontLab. I still think the k and h ﬁt my earlier stated design philosophy. It may take some getting used to for many type-savvy people. I have gotten so used to it now that it looks quite normal. When I show it to laymen, they don’t even notice even when I point it out to them. I really do appreciate your continued willingness to share your insights. You, Hrant, Steve, and a few others here, have been a very supportive group of sounding boards who are always kind enough to take their time to critique my work. This helps me either focus harder on the pros and cons or shows me possible errors of my ways. Thanks to all my colleagues here online. ChrisL
I have just completed Greek and Cyrillic character sets as well as Latin Small Caps for Leporello Black. I am familiar with Greek letterforms. My family came to the U.S. from Greece and I spoke Greek as a childbut not much in over 40 years. I know almost nothing about Russian and just took a blind shot at Cyrillic based on my Roman and Greek glyphs so I really need help in Russian arena. Small Caps in a very heavy weight are not the best use but I thought if I could make the Black work, going back to the lighter weights would be easier. Attached is a 2-page PDF with glyph sets and some 10pt text. ChrisL
Chris, I’m looking at your Cyrillic. Well, it’s a beginning, but you have to do a *lot* of work on it. I recommend that you take a look at ParaType’s typefaces. Since your font is black, I’d recommend taking a look at: http://www.myfonts.com/url?f55ca8b86e1a8e60af8495bfc7b5dcd8 and http://www.myfonts.com/url?7492efd8ae9cb7d464a951168297962d http://www.myfonts.com/url?ccb28769dd0f8d2a65527e8cfe0ddaa4 The FreeSet shows you what you can do in a Cyrillic be to compensate the overly blackness (reduce the bowl). Currently, your be looks rather weak. Your Cyrillic i is far too deeply cut-in, looks as if it will fall apart. Connect the slanted element more ﬁrmly with the stems. Remember that a Cyrillic I is nothing like a reversed Latin N. Compare: http://www.myfonts.com/url?410beb03e5667abdc04b7075b0000d28 http://www.myfonts.com/url?706f3090cb966e757739c1314953a1d7 Your Cyrillic ka and zhe are nice, although, since your typeface includes these strange curves like on the top of the Latin k, you might try to make the Cyrillic ka and zhe more curvy, as in the Black Grotesk or Bell Gothic examples: http://www.myfonts.com/url?e352c081f46e0ea7510a8a5cdbd4f6b7 http://www.myfonts.com/url?c8bc472ba1152c4d8956565982c4b237 Fine-tune your Cyrillic el and de — the left stem of the de should really be slightly slanted. Your lowercase Cyrillic ef is too light, and you’re not showing your uppercase ef, so it’s hard do say. But you deﬁnitely should do some work on that. The curvy teeth on ce and shcha work well, but they look awfully in the de — you need to think of something better there. Remember that the teeth in de should *never* point outwards, this makes the letter look like an unskilled skater. The teeth should be either parallel, or they may point inwards — you sure need some more solid work, and ideally an expert’s advice on that. For a start, your Cyrillic is adequate though. You managed to avoid the most horriﬁc atrocities often found in ﬁrst-timers’ Cyrillics. You may want to simplify the dcaron, tcaron, lcaron — refer to the diacritics article in http://www.magtypo.cz/download/TYPO_2004_10.pdf The lslash in the Black cut as shown in http://www.typophile.com/forums/messages/29/Leporello_Black-53536.pdf is good but the Lslash is not. The slanted element in Lslash should be ﬂatter (i.e. slightly more towards horizontal) and the right arm should be a bit longer. But principally, the Black is very handsome. The junction of ogonek with the basic letter in the Bold cut is too thin, but in the Black, it’s very good. In other words, in the Bold, it looks as if the ogonek is disconnected from the letter in a uglyish way. As Robert already pointed out, the slanted element in the Light cut as shown in http://www.typophile.com/forums/messages/29/Leporellolite10-29-52377.pdf is just too thin. Also, it lslash, the slanted element is too wide, especially to the left. On the other hand, in Lslash, the slanted element is too short to the right, and too much pointing upwards (should be ﬂatter). Also, in the Light, it really looks as if the ogonek were not connected to the letter, which gives a strange eﬀect. Rotate your “p” by 90 degree to the right and look at the connection between the bowl and the stem: it’s much “stronger” than your connection between ogonek and “a”. I do appreciate your attempt to make a sort of an ink trap there, but it’s just too much of an in-cut. Finally, the ﬁgures: somehow they look like a plain rip oﬀ from Akzidenz Grotesk. They don’t seem to follow the style of the letters. They’re just too plain and too round Best regards, Adam
As usual, Adam comes down hard with a ton of invaluable insight! I myself would oﬀer this important alert: When a font is structurally “pushy” (not mainstream) like your Latin most certainly is, you have to be very careful about how you cast non-Latin extensions. Since a font is something useful and -hopefully- not just a formal exercise, the various script components of the family have to be useful in the same way for a user to be able to combine the components with a controllable eﬀect. The non-Latin instances of Leporello should be equally pushy, and in the context of users of each script. This is very hard to do for a non-native… So for example when Adam writes “since your typeface includes these strange curves like on the top of the Latin k, you might try to ….” I immediately think: it’s not just about the shape, it’s more about what the shapes are supposed to be doing. hhp
Adam, Thank you for taking so much of your valuable time to help me with Cyrillic and CE. I will take some time now and digest your many very helpful comments and make corrections to my fonts. It is a good feeling to know how helpful the world-wide Typophile community is and willing to share their expertise. I didn’t realize that the numbers were so AG-like, it was not intended—Good heavens, dare I stir the wrath of Chicago? I’ll quickly unAG them :-) Hrant, Forgive my lack of conﬁdence in pushing the non-latin letterforms. I am the kind of designer who depends on my eyes to see forms digested from my intelect. Since, as you said, I am a non-native and perhaps too cautious in my ﬁrst venture into Cyrillic (not much had been digested in that arena). I will have another go at it and try not to be so timid. I know I can depend on my colleagues here online to tell me when I have “overpushed” in my attempts :-) Thanks again for your continuing feedback. ChrisL
Adam, I have worked on the CE glyphs in my Leporello Bold. I also redid the ﬁgures as you suggested. I have not worked on the Cyrillic or any of the other weights yet. Attached is a 3-page PDF with character set and some CE text following it. Please let me know if I am getting closer especially with the CE. Thanks, ChrisL
Chris, Very good changes. The ogonek in eogonek could be a bit more to the left (some 7-10% of the glyph’s width), now its placement is somewhat not harmonous with the other *ogonek glyphs. Good work on the tcaron/dcaron/lcaron. I think your macrons are too weak and a bit too narrow. The slanted element in lslash is now a bit too bold, make it just as bold as the middle element of the lowercase “a”. But the boldness in the uppercase Lslash is OK. Actually, in this particular typeface, you could add a little curliness to your slanted element in Lslash/lslash, just like in Martin Majoor’s Seria: http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/%7Eluc/atypi2004-prague/516-medium.jpg or in the 1928 Polish Poltawski typeface: http://www.twardoch.com/tmp/poltawskilslash.jpg This would mean that you’d have to make the endings of the lslash slanted element not completely vertical, but having a slight slant to the left (just as much as in the lower part of the t or l). The curliness wouldn’t have to be much, too, but it would add some nice native ﬂair. However, making the slanted element straight as you made it is also ﬁne and looks good. The ﬁgures look more comfy now. Also, something’s wrong with your “y”. Best, Adam
Adam, Thank you for your swift reply. I will make the corrections. I like your idea: “you could add a little curliness to your slanted element in Lslash/lslash”. Also, the TYPO link is quite helpful. Filip did quite a good job with his article. That is an exellent publication that every type designer should subscribe to. ChrisL
Adam, In the Bold, I made the L and l slash more curly as you suggested. I also ﬁxed the macrons and eogonek. In the Black, I worked more on the Cyrillic and attempted (in my naive way) to correct the errors you noticed. I also tried to bring more harmonious elements from the Latin glyphs into the Cyrillic. Please review the 2 PDFs attached. Thank you, ChrisL
Nice numerals Chris.
Thanks Robert—maybe I won’t now be getting a visit from Chicago lawyers :-) Chris
I noticed a few problems in the Black Greek and Cyrillic which I ﬁxed (be, i, ve, and a few other tinkerings). See attachrd PDF. ChrisL
I have designed the Greek and Cyrillic glyphs for the light version of Leporello and added oldstyle ﬁgures to the weight as well. I also made further corrections on the Black. Attached are 2 PDFs, one Light and one Black. Chris
I really like how this family has developed! If it’s not too expensive, I’ll buy a copy of the ﬁnished product. I can deﬁnitely ﬁnd uses for it. The Cyrillic clearly needs more work; my feeling is that it lacks much of the personality of the Latin glyphs that you worked so hard to create. Here are a few speciﬁc suggestions:
Forrest, I very much appreciate your comments on the Cyrillic! Thank you for your well thought out suggestions. Since I am not a Russian speaker, I was most cautious about my drawing of the Cyrillic. I felt uneasy departing too far from what was in my limited exposure to slavic languages. I really wanted this font to be as open to language diﬀerence as possible so I felt Cyrillic was a requirement—and still do. I do want to push the Cyrillic more as you suggest. I would like to take you up on your generous oﬀer to send scans of Pushkin and whatever handwriting and calligraphy you can spare. Also, if you know of any other good sources in print or online, please let me know. My Google search didn
I’ve got a better idea: here’s a monoline script that uses the Russian cursive forms: http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/paratype/propisi/ I’ll keep my eyes peeled for some high-quality calligraphy to pass your way.
A comment on Cyrillic: The only thing that truly inﬂuences the readability negatively is that ‘de’ and ‘el’ have too much empty space in the upper-left corner. Look at the text and you’ll see that every time ‘de’ or ‘el’ appears inside the word, it creates a huge gap with the previous symbol. Second: usually Russian ‘e reversed’ and Ukrainian ‘ye’ are created by taking ‘es’=c and putting a dash inside to create a mirrored bottom part of e. They should not be left so open. All the rest looks quite well.
Andrey, Thank you very much! I will try your suggestions and post changes. ChrisL
Testing to see what happens if I post to this crit and see where it surfaces under Typophile 2.
Chris, start a new thread when you do ... this one is a little hinky.
"hinky"? OK Tiff, I know I am an old geezer but what does that mean?
If I start a new thread, will I be able to post images that show? I know, my first GIF is too Jagounda (that is old guy speak for "way too big").
Dunno really. Rich Kegler used it once to describe some font outlines and I thought it was a good word. :^/
Images. Hmm. I have just been told that the masses are having difficulty seeing attachments. As I'm not a technical person and only a loud-mouth (mouth piece) here I wasn't aware of this problem. So, I'm not sure others will see your images. :^(
I met you, you are no loud mouth. You are actually much more soft spoken than I thought--even shy!
Chris, I found Mathew Carter's critique of your typeface really interesting--it helped me too. He said of some feature--one of the bent ascenders I think--that you don't really notice it text size, and if you don't see it, then you should cut that variation. The idea I carried away that when you do some design feature, it should be done with confidence, and to make a difference. That idea of being very intentional about making a difference with a design feature gave me a better concept myself.
Following this up, I wonder what Leporello 'Straight' would look like. You is so polished and extensive, and that variant might be more quickly welcomed and have strong merits of its own, along with the 'bent' versions.
Just a thought.
I tried that last year. If you scroll back up to my June 20, 2004 post you will see:
"The second PDF shows a synopsis of the opera Don Giovanni used as text. It explains the opera as well as my reasoning for the naming; Plain for Leporello as himself, a servant; cloaked for Leporello partially disguised; and Masqued for him as his master.
The left column of text is in "Plain" and the right column is n "Cloaked." "
How Leporello goes by now?
Overall I really like it. Only one comment: take a closer look at the bottom bowl of your æ glyph compare to the a. The join between two letters seems not smooth enough.
Good work and keep going this very nice face.
"take a closer look at the bottom bowl of your glyph compare to the a. "
Did you leave something out of your post? Perhaps which glyph you mean?
PS: Thanks for your kind comments!
The glyph I was talking is the æ