Kelmas

Eimantas Paškonis's picture

*** Images are from 1 version earlier. /T is now wider and /S straighter. ***

Still haven't decided about title.
What started as quick, for-fun, only-caps font, is turning out to be a multilingual family of 2 weights that could be counted as 6 fonts. Because there are small caps, swashed style and alternates for both of them. That's even not counting ligatures (for Cyrillic too!).
Plus manual T1 hinting.

Update 4 (2012/V/30)
pdf's:
http://cl.ly/H06i (Light)
http://cl.ly/H03z (Dark)




Bendy's picture

Interesting dilemma about the P and R. To me it seems you might have two fonts here, the middle two lines (H-M and O-T) look like a different (darker) font to the rest because they're not using hairlines in the same way. I'd go one way or the other, and make it consistent throughout.

Bert Vanderveen's picture

My suggestion: make the problematic curved glyphs a bit wider…

Eimantas Paškonis's picture

@Bendy
They look darker. There's not much I can do about it though.
/K/ with thin arms looks bad. Monoline /O/ falls out by being too thin.
I will try dual line /R/ and /P/.
Or fat /B/.

Eimantas Paškonis's picture



Now I'd have to change /D/ in second variant. Guess I'll be sticking with first one.
Also, /Q/ eye extends too far to the bottom.

Eimantas Paškonis's picture

New sketchy /K/

Luma Vine's picture

Nice progress. I wonder if /H/ could have asymmetric weight like /U/? New /K/ is great!

cerulean's picture

An interesting way to conform the color of /H/ might be to reverse its contrast! Then it would have just one heavy stroke, the crossbar. Too wacky, or just wacky enough for "flawed and handmade"?

Eimantas Paškonis's picture

Haven't thought of this. But yeah, too wacky...

Stinger's picture

This is progressing pretty nice!

Have you considered making the /O/ and /Q/ in similar fashion as you are now doing with /B D, P/ and /R/? Asymmetrical that is? Im saying because I kinda agree with Bendy, there seem to be two systems in use within the font right now for using thin or thick strokes.

The other option would be to use the thin strokes only as horizontals/bars and as serifs, and make everything else thick. So stick with the original /K/ (you could also add serifs on the right side ad you did with the new /K/) and alter /B, D/ etc? That said, the thick/thin contrast is probably what makes the latest version so interesting - so you might want to stick with the current route.

Also, have you considered using a thin stroke for the tail of the /Q/ instead of a thick one?

Love the /E/ and /K/ by the way, nicely shaped!

Eimantas Paškonis's picture

@Stinger - How can /O/ be asymmetrical?
@Bert's suggestion to make /O/ wider.


Bendy's picture

>@Stinger - How can /O/ be asymmetrical?

Check out Broadway

Stinger's picture

^^ exactly what I had in mind, so the rightside would be a thin stroke instead of a thick stroke. It might sound like an odd idea but it would probably work - as a system in theory at least.

The Broadway typeface that Bendy linked is a good example that it works in practice as well

Eimantas Paškonis's picture

I'm surprised. This may actually work.



Bad spacing, I know. Haven't worked on it yet.

Bendy's picture

Try a Broadway H as well?

Eimantas Paškonis's picture

Nice. Several heads always better than one.



Now it finally has the rhythm.

Eimantas Paškonis's picture

Not sure about /5/ the most.

Stinger's picture

Oh yes! It's working nicely man, great to see this evolve. /H O Q/ all much improved in combination with the rest. /H/ is very much a brother of /K/ now, awesoem.

Great stuff!

Eimantas Paškonis's picture

Makes me a happy panda :)

Now I'm wondering about serifs. Initial idea was to have them only inwards, like /A/.
But then all the other thick stem letters looked boring /E H I L M etc./ So I gave them "proper" serifs.
And now /U/ falls out. But if I add serifs at the thick top (like /I/), it will be closed and less legible.
On the other hand, I can pretend it comes from /V W Y/ group.

Stinger's picture

Awesome (spelled correctly this time), that's great to hear!

Hmm, maybe /U/ does stand out, but if so, then /V W X Y/ do as well, maybe even /Z/ and probably /A/ also (both at the top and at the bottom). You could say the same for the top of the /J/. Might be worth a try though? Not sure if e.g. /U/ would be too closed, of you look at the bottom or the /R/ I think it will have more space than that probably?

On the other hand it might become too predictable if you apply it everywhere, even though it's 'systematically' correct, if you see what I mean?

Oh, have you tried a thin tail for /Q/ yet? I still feel it's kinda in-your-face right now...

Eimantas Paškonis's picture

I've tried, but fat tail helps to distinguish from /O/ better. And gives more contrast.
The old /Q/ had a black spot on bottom left which wasn't tasty and is fixed now.


Stinger's picture

To be honest, I really like it! It's quite elegant actually. What if you add a serif on the bottom of the tail to enhance it a bit? Would that be allowed? (Im not sure if there should be one there or not). Don't think it needs that though.

I'm not so sure, are there a lot of words/instances where one would easily mistake a /Q/ for an /O/?

For me personally, the bottom "requiem" has the most aesthetic look, the best rhythm.

Luma Vine's picture

Yea, that's what I meant about the /H/, nice. I love the new /Q/ too. Still not totally sure of the logic behind the full and half serifs (HKMN vs AUVWXYZ).

Eimantas Paškonis's picture

The logic is that vertical stems looked boring without serifs.
Diagonal stems doesn't have outer serifs because of initial stylistic idea and because it adds even more white space to the outside.
And knowing that most letters are blocky, this doesn't help the stylistic unity.

Eimantas Paškonis's picture

Awkward lowercase being born:

Eimantas Paškonis's picture

Crap, forgot to add /g/

Stinger's picture

Interesting progress on the lower cases. I am assuming that the /a/ was becoming too closed up with a semi-serif topleft? I would say that it's logical to add that but you probably tried and deleted? Would be intresting to see though...

Right now I think the /g/ kinda stands out. Maybe because it breaks the rhythm (wide stroke left and wide stroke right within the same glyph). How about a single storey /g/ instead of a two storey one?

/b c d e h o p/ are looking really good!

Luma Vine's picture

K, U, and R don't seem to fit the vertical=full serif, diagonal=half serif logic. But I do love the look and the lower case is coming along nicely!

Eimantas Paškonis's picture

I intend to keep two storey /g/. It's more interesting and there are 4 homogenous letters already.


Not sure about dots - should I put them at ascender height (which is quite low) or not.

Stinger's picture

Looking good! Especially love the /t/!

I had expected a different /q/ though, one with a thin tail actually - have you tried that? Come to think of it, this might be an interesting experiment for /d/ as well (as right now it's almost an inverted /b/). It might look odd though.

I still think the /g/ looks a bit off, but im also not sure how to solve that. If the tail is completely thin (without the wide part) it might be even more odd.

Also, I like /a/ much better with the semi-serif topleft!

The height of the dots on /i j/ looks good to me, but I think they are a bit wide maybe? They now look a bit too fat in total (too much black). Not sure if it would fit the logic/system of the typeface but have you tried making them a bit less wide? Or round, even?

Bendy's picture

Funnily enough, I was thinking a similar thing about the tittles on /i/ and /j/. Something along the lines of Gill Ultra.

I'd like to see how /j/ would look with a thin tail. Bite a counter out of that stem as it hits the baseline and try a hairline descender?

Eimantas Paškonis's picture

/q/ or /j/ with thin tails are too drastic.
Besides, there will be monoline version to supplement this one.

I'm thinking about condensing everything to give more practical use.

Eimantas Paškonis's picture

Smaller dots

Stinger's picture

what if you take it a little further and make the dots actual circles? that is, even less wide?

Eimantas Paškonis's picture

Updated the OP


These dots could work, I just like others better.

Stinger's picture

As it is right now I indeed like the previous dots better.

The other font is similar a bit, but it doesn't have any lower case glyphs?
I would say this is still different enough!

Eimantas Paškonis's picture

Started the small caps (omitted the obvious ones here).
Small /Q/ with thick tail looked silly, so it probably means that the big one will have to be changed accordingly too...

Luma Vine's picture

/r/ & /m/ seem a little odd to me. I think because the tops are flat where I expect a little valley. I see how it is consistent with other letters, but you might play around with it a bit. /y/ feels a bit overly geometric maybe? Have you tried /t/ where the top slant continues into the left side of the crossbar? Maybe it is just the way it is kerned with the /T/ but that area feels finicky. Love the small caps, and especially the thin tailed /Q/.

Eimantas Paškonis's picture

Yes, /r/ is poorly legible indeed.


This is how I solved slashed O. Diagonal bar across all the letter conflicted with the thick part.

Eimantas Paškonis's picture

Which should be comma/quote?

riccard0's picture

Second one.

Eimantas Paškonis's picture

:D
I expressed it wrong. Which should be a comma and which - quote?

riccard0's picture

If you need two different designs, first one quote, second one comma.

Stinger's picture

Final comma is awesome - I'd use it for both!

Bottom /r/ is much better a few posts above, i like the slight indent and it makes it much more readable - you could use the same trick for /m/ and /n/?

And yay for the /Q/ with a small tail!

Eimantas Paškonis's picture

Isn't capitals too dark?

Eimantas Paškonis's picture

Do smalcaps serifs have to be capital or lowercase size?

LexLuengas's picture

Neither one nor the other (sth. inbetween), but I use to draw them in capital size, because you often use small caps together with caps.

Eimantas Paškonis's picture

My logic is to use lowercase serifs, because they are to be used between lowercase letters. But since this is display font with different purpose, you may be right.
My small caps with big serifs were too dark though.

Eimantas Paškonis's picture

Discretionary ligatures for caps. Do small caps numbers have to be oldstyle?

Stinger's picture

Whoah those are pretty sexy mister! 'pologies for the language :)

RE: small caps. I recently used a typeface where the smallcaps were set to X-height and that worked out pretty rediculous. They were really way to small. They should be smaller than usual caps of course, but not too small. So I'm guessing somewhere between X-height and Capital height (often close to ascender height I think?) should be a better working method? Im no expert though so I am curious to hear what others say about this.

Syndicate content Syndicate content