Anfíbia - new display font

13»

Comments

  • Hello again.

    I imagined that this year would be able to produce this project faster
    , but I did not imagine the unforeseen events that kept me away from the type design.

    Well, here I show the new weight of typeface, I wanted everyone's opinion I do not know if I studied enough about drawing bold types.


    Thanks in advance.
     





  • I worked at an even thinner weight,
    What do you think?


  • I'm not sure the back-leaning C, c and G are really working well, in any weight.

    The lowercase s is feeling awkward and "constructed" and the top is just a bit too pinched, especially in the bold.

    The cap S leans back in the bold and leans forward in the light, so it seems inconsistent in that regard.

    The cap U has a squarish bottom curve, that seems out of place with everything else in the font. Perhaps a bulging out rounded shape would work better.
  • Ray LarabieRay Larabie Posts: 737
    I disagree about the squarish U. It looks like a circa 1900 typeface and that kind of idea was common in display lettering. Do a Pinterest search for piano sheet music covers and you'll see it a lot.
  • Sure, thanks for the feedback
    I'm going to start working on S / because that's what I get the most from the mistake.
  • What do you think???




    I later post the new forms of /G and /C


  • I'm following the path of keeping the back slope

  • Boldest /S/ still leans back.
  • edited January 6
    Sorry, don't finish


            old                                                       new

  • Overlap


    I realized he was more bold than of what should, so the redesign was more drastic


  • I just worked in the /G bold so far

    Overlap:

    I do not know if it's working. What do you think???


  • Thomas PhinneyThomas Phinney Posts: 1,006
    The back-lean in C and G doesn't really work for me, but that may be just a matter of taste. S is looking better, for sure.
  • Hello everyone again,

    well, I have a very unusual and technical difficulty for me, was compiling the fonts and configuring so that they work perfectly in both adobe softwares and windowns applications.

    It turns out that at the end of the process I realized that one of the weights ended up getting 4 times more weight than the others (~ 242kb vs 72kb of the other weights).
    Do you have any idea what misconfiguration I have made, because before it was also similar in size to the others.

    Note: I use FontLab Studio5
  • Thomas PhinneyThomas Phinney Posts: 1,006
    That's a pretty huge size difference. Unfortunately, there are a lot of things that affect size of generated fonts. It's hard to just guess one offhand. And it might be more than one thing, even.

    Were you doing a lot of tweaking on the separate fonts? What kinds of things were you working on?

    Do they all have the same character set? I'm guessing you'd notice if a ton of glyphs were missing. But the first thing to do is re-open the "big" font and one of the others and check.

    Kerning differences? Between (a) class kerning and/or (b) flat kerning, or none. Four possible configurations (a, b, a+b, none).

    (Other) OpenType layout features all made it into final fonts?

    Are you generating TTF, or OTF?
    - if TTF, are you using components? Did you flatten them at some point? (This you can check by re-opening the final font in FontLab Studio.)
    - if OTF, are you using subroutines? Did they get flattened?
  • The last two things I remember running were the compression in OpenType Kerning Assistance and Contour / Paths / Set PS Direction

  • Thomas PhinneyThomas Phinney Posts: 1,006
    I'd suggest going to https://support.fontlab.com, opening a support ticket, and attaching both the "large" and one of the "small" fonts.

    Or post them publicly if you don't mind. Identifying the difference is not FontLab-specific. (Although explaining what in FontLab might create that difference is, of course.)
  • Thank you for your help Thomas

    I'll continue without knowing the answer, because the most practical solution I found was: go back and work on a version before the error.

    But if at some point it happens again, I'll do as you told me.

  • edited January 23
    I just noticed a difference between the two,

    Call > VOLT features table <

    Do you think that could be the problem?
Sign In or Register to comment.