l_vazquez's picture

Fellow colleagues,

Let me show you my first major typographic work: Poverty.

It's a font based in early Renaissance typefaces as well as inscriptional letters found in paintings from the XVI and XVII centuries.

At present it's optical size its suitable for display. Maybe, in the future, I will create another version for text use. Italics may come as well.

After having been working on this font for as long as I can remember I have a reached a point where your help is needed, my eye may bypass some details clearly visible to an experienced type designer.

Hope you like it!

l_vazquez's picture

I have loaded this pictures because some people are experiencing problems with the PDF.AlphabetSetting

hrant's picture

What PDF?


I think what you're trying to do is quite hard. Others who have made fonts like this have stuck to highly decorative results (which is a lot easier), while you seem to be trying to shoot for text. Barnbrook's Priori (from Emigre) is something you might like to look at for possible ideas.

I think you're mostly on the right track, but some glyphs go too far while others are a bit too reserved. That first "t" and certainly that first "o" are examples of going too far, while most of the letters are too docile; I think you need some docility, especially among more frequent letters (like the "e" - which I think is just right there), but some of your glyphs which are just pushy enough are: the second "k", "r", "w" and "z". The "g" is really wonderful, just a little too strong on the finish of the tail.

The caps seem more properly balanced (considering their role), although it would be nice to have some fancier alternates. Your "A", third "K", second "R", "U" and "W" are very nice, while the second "Y" for example seems too much here, and maybe things like the "C" need slightly more flair.


l_vazquez's picture

Thanks for your wise comments hhp.
At present I'm refining the glyphs, in search of that "feeling" and "flair".

I'm having troubles taking some decisions. Specially with the b, p and q. b, p, q.

Notice the difference with the ones above and the ones below. Any comments will be greatly appreciated.

l_vazquez's picture

To anyone interested

Pieter van Rosmalen's picture

Hello Luis,
It looks nice.
But I think the h, n, u and m glyphs look to wide.
The R looks a little like a P with a leg attached to it.
The second g looks odd to me.
Nice job!

Syndicate content Syndicate content