Hi there, here's a font in development by our studio, want the help of you typophilers to improve it. Waiting for your critique.
I will post more developments and pdf's soon.
My best regards and thank you in advance.
I feel like writing a long post. :-) Though I'm only a beginner so please take my comments with a large grain of salt.
This looks interesting, even though it's positioning itself in a rather densely populated genre. For instance, a few glyphs (especially the "e") instantly reminded me of Etelka. It might be quite fruitful to do some research in this genre (if you haven't done so already).
To give deeper / more meaningful feed-back, it would be good to know what purpose you have in mind for this – is it intended for display, or text sizes?
My main impression – especially if this is not only meant for large sizes – is that it's very "graphic design-y", which mostly means there are a lot of identical shapes. I wonder if that is intended; and even if it is, I doubt it'd work at least in smaller sizes.
For one thing, the "b", "d", "p", and "q" look like they might all be the same shape, mirrored / rotated; I tend to think the "b" and "p" are working better – the "d" and "q" look "flipped" to me. Similarly, the "u" seems to be a rotated "n" – and looks slightly too wide as a consequence.
What you have here is an interesting idea, but I believe it could grow to be much more if you are ready to dive deeper into the intricacies of type design, where it departs from the simpler/straighter (IMHO) premises of graphic design.
Some detail impressions:
I'd try a monocameral "g". This one seems out of character (and even if one accepts the basic premise for a second, I'm not sure the tail works).
"k": It does look nice, but may be out of character in this font. Have you tried a double join? Or maybe one with a crossbar?
At least if this is going to be a text face, the joins on the "n" and "m" may be too high.
The "o" is way too round.
The "s" looks pretty nice – congrats. Though it may have a hair too much weight in the tight curves, especially the bottom-right. I believe the usual way to do it is to put the most weight on the spine.
There's something slightly off-putting about the "x"; then again, I haven't figured the "x" out myself so I can't really say why. Perhaps it's too narrow?
I like the "y" a lot, especially the join.
Is the diagonal of the "z" a bit too heavy?
Keep us posted. :-)
I agree with some of Nina's observations, thought the pbdq thing was unexpected.
I agree there's a whole lot of other fonts in the square sans genre these days so if you want to market this you'll need to be definite about making it different.
My initial feelings were about the g,u and m. The g needs reconsidering. The bowl is too round and the tail is a bit flat. u needs a higher join, and the mnr could be lower as Nina said. m looks too wide to me.
a and c don't quite harmonise because c is curved on top and a looks straight.
I think the traps on vwy should carry over to z. The round shapes could do with more overshoot.
Again, I'm not very advanced in fontmaking so feel free to add more salt... :)
I like the design a lot, but take a look at FF Signa. It's very similar.
Is there a paying client lined up behind this?
I think I would give the g tail a more natural curve than the filleted round that is on there now. Nothing against the the fillet, it just doesn't show up any where else in the design.
That does look a bit more natural. But do you think the shape only needs that curve tweak? I'm not sure this "g" has anything much to do with the rest of the font, and that tail still looks rather strained, and struggling for width.
Please do enlighten me if I'm wrong.
For the "g", the top of the bottom bowl can be moved up to arrive at a better balance of proportions. But there are issues of polish as well, like the inside of the top bowl is not very circular - it's more like a fat diamond, and the curve widths seem inconstant. The "diamond" problem is repeated in the "o", and other glyphs have similar problems. Also in the "g": the ear is too long.
Hi there, first i would like to say thanks to the responses that we had.
To explain the initial idea for this font, this is not for a paid client, it has born from the major interest that 3 persons from the studio, have in typography, and would like to improve their knowledges and after some hard study and investigation, we started to do a font that somehow represented a bit of each of us, we have take some nordic inspiration, and without doubt FF Signa was a major one(of course without the intend of beeing a clone), FF Max, Etelka from StormTypeFoundry, and some portuguese from Dstype.
Our major intent is to be a text font, readable and modern with some "cool" feeling behind it.
Answering to Altaira and Bendy (thank you :) ), the mirrored "p,b,q,d" it really needs more atention and perhaps with would work better with a little diferences between them.
The "g" was the last letter to be drawn, and it was a headache, first he've tried what seems logical to us a shape that was a "q" with a tail, but somehow with seemed that it didn't work, so we've tried to do it in this way, any suggestions??!!!!, should we persue the this"g" or the other one???
Regarding the "o" we really like the "openness" of it, but we will try to balance it with the rest.
Thanks to all and keep on touch, we will be on workin.
Our best regards
On the 'o' and 'g'; the 'o' needs to be more square, basically like the 'c' but closed off, so to speak. The same goes to the top of the 'g', it is too circular, it needs to be more angular to fit with the rest of the characters.
I also think the same could be said for the 's'. While it is a rather nice 's' on itself, I don't think it fits particularly well with the overall design. Just like the 'o' and 'g', it is too smooth. Take a look at Camingo, or some of the other examples that have been mentioned, to see how these issues were solved.
The right stroke of the 'y' seems to be too heavy. You have to turn this around, the left stroke should be the heavier one.
The ear of the 'r' starts way to low in my opinion. This one seems to be made with a sliced off 'n', but really you should see it as a completely seperate shape. Take this image as an example (exerpt from Underware's Type Basics). The ear of the 'r' works best if it starts somewhere in the range 1/2 or 3/4 of the stem (so 2/3's could also work, etc.).
I think a curved 3-story g would be useful to keep the spline in s from being isolated.
I second the polish issues mentioned by hrant/Quincunx, in carrying out the squarish "cool" look present in b,d,p,q,h,n,u,c,e into g,o
> Regarding the “o” we really like the “openness” of it, but we will try to balance it with the rest.
To my point of view your o is'nt open, it's even a bit close compare to the p which one is open. Other thing is the horizontal bar in the m, n, u, I would reduce the thickness a little to avoid to get something too black between the stem and the join.