LOVE (thickness and proportions)

Primary tabs

12 posts / 0 new
Last post
Serdar's picture
Offline
Joined: 26 Feb 2012 - 10:36am
LOVE (thickness and proportions)
0

What do you think of letter thickness and proportions in this word?

Hrant H Papazian's picture
Joined: 3 May 2000 - 11:00am
0

I would make the "L" narrower and the "E" lighter.

hhp

Serdar's picture
Offline
Joined: 26 Feb 2012 - 10:36am
0

How would you make E lighter?

Since this is for a logo, I thought starting the word with a wider L is better. You did not like the empty space between L and O, is that it?

How about the weights of O and V?

Craig Eliason's picture
Offline
Joined: 19 Mar 2004 - 1:44pm
0

Horizontal of L could be a bit thicker.

Serdar's picture
Offline
Joined: 26 Feb 2012 - 10:36am
0

I agree. I did make L thicker and bars of E narrower in a variation, but is it OK to use different thickness for L and E?

Hrant H Papazian's picture
Joined: 3 May 2000 - 11:00am
0

As Fiona Ross recently said: "To make things look the same you have to make them different." :-)

Thickening the horizontal of the "L" might mean it can stay that width.

Lightening the "E": try making the vertical thinner.

hhp

Serdar's picture
Offline
Joined: 26 Feb 2012 - 10:36am
0

Nice quote :)

Okay I know equal and optically equal are not the same. Horizontals vary, but verticals of L and E are almost always the same in typeforms, aren't they? Just trying to understand the basics a little bit.

Craig Eliason's picture
Offline
Joined: 19 Mar 2004 - 1:44pm
0

It's a question of what you can get away with in a given setting. If the /L/ and /E/ were next to each other, the eye would be less forgiving about unequal stroke widths. Type designers have to allow for that, but logo designers don't!

Serdar's picture
Offline
Joined: 26 Feb 2012 - 10:36am
0

Hmm, I see your point... Fair enough. I'll post a rounded version here shortly.

HVB's picture
HVB
Offline
Joined: 17 Feb 2006 - 9:43am
0

If the word is part of a larger logo, then nitpicking it as a stand-alone element is fruitless. It would have to be seen in context. If it's the entire logo, than it appears somewhat elephantine - more so in the reversed version. If it's to appear both black on white and white on black, the word should be optically corrected to look the same in both environments. And it will be different when printed than on a screen, and different depending on the sizes and resolutions of the media.

The space between the L and O will disappear in some sizes and circumstances.

You asked if it's OK for the L and E to have different dimensions - if it looks right, then yes.
To me, the spaces between the E's crossbars look very small. The optical effect is that the E's top and bottom crossbars look considerably fatter than the L's horizontal, even though they're the same. That may be why eliason said to make L's horizontal wider.

You're trying to design a VISUAL identity, not a mathematical one. What you SEE is always more important than what's actually there

- Herb

Hrant H Papazian's picture
Joined: 3 May 2000 - 11:00am
0

It's a question of what you can get away with

Which is the -or at least a- difference between lettering and type.

hhp

Serdar's picture
Offline
Joined: 26 Feb 2012 - 10:36am
0

Variation with rounded corners.

I adjusted horizontals of L and E, narrowed V and O a little.

Herb, I recently read a text about a new typeface which claims it's optically adjusted for negative use but could not find it now. Does this mean not all -even pro- typefaces are crafted for negative use?