Rather than relying exclusively on Christian Thalmann's generous (and much-appreciated) advice (where do you get the time?!), I figured it might be a good idea to start a new thread. I don't expect it to turn into the premiere thread (I only
hope for it
), but maybe this will help me and my fellow n00bz.
As anybody who' seen my "Critique" threads knows, I have lumpy curves. Really lumpy, bumpy, awkward curves -- sometimes flat, sometimes sharp. Awkward transitions, too. And figgy bowls. I'm starting to correct them one by one as they're pointed out, but I'm still not quite grasping the concept very well. ("Hi, my name is Mike and...") A few other people have hinted lately that they're having similar issues. Maybe it's a lack of art training?
Lately I've been getting much better results by deleting on on-curve point, adjusting the off-curve points if necessary, and letting my editor recreate the on-curve point. This definitely gives me smoother curves, but I still have issues with pointy -- "figgy" -- bowls. I often take the off-curve handles out a bit, but it's too easy to overdo it (or underdo!).
Another issue which I run into over and over is harmonizing inner and outer portions of a curve -- the bowl of /b, for example. In a face with angular stress, the extrema are not aligned (inner lower, outer higher for the afore-mentioned /b), and I always end up with weird shapes that don't fit together. (This may be why horizontal stress is so popular.)
Transitions between curve and flat, such as in /h, is another difficult task. (Although I think I'm pretty good with serifs.)
Anyhoo, does anybody have advice? techniques? words of encouragement or hope? I've reshaped /h/p/o/v so many times that I see them in my sleep, and switching to Morse code starts to look like a good idea. What should I look for?
Comments
Demonstration (top is better)
First bring the handle up to 0º:
Now drop the control point down and lengthen the handle to compensate:
And the ugly transition is gone. You can put your initial curve into the background (if your font editor supports that) to help make the compensation.
Your examples are two different kinds of stroke intersection. The top is News Gothic, the Bottom is Helvetica. This is a much bigger issue than how to draw a nice curve.
Back to the topic at hand, like Chris said, it takes lots of practice. And look for good curves in everything—not just type—will help there. Study the way a top-notch figure illustrator like Frank Cho draws curves. Check out old streamlined cars. Etc. etc..
Blame it on TeX… Or on the awkwardness of Windows, perhaps — alt+150 with a NumLock is a PitA to get /endash (much easier to use Word with a shortcut key, then copy/paste). I understand Mac and Linux guys have it easier.
Hmm, it’s probably worth designing hyphens that automatically kern or sub into proper dashes. (Or even just have no whitespace to the sides.)
Anyway…
Too bad there’s no shortcut. But on the bright side, I get to look at Matisse and such without guilt.
Also, I had a question about… diagonal points? I’m not sure what to call them, but it’s the extra points put at NW, NW, SW, SE of a curve. Minion’s /c and /f have them in their upper lefts, for example. Is this an artifact of digitization, or are these points functional? Merging them into the curves doesn’t make a large difference. Perhaps it’s to help with rendering?
Then use the "Free Scale" tool with the origin of the transformation at the duplicate's positioned control point, and scale the spline so that the other end lands where you want it.
Then 'stitch' the 2 pieces together into a closed contour and see how it looks. Likely it won't be lumpy, but create a convincing illusion that there was a single stroke, not 2 edges that are out of sync in some way.
Back on topic… I think two things helped me improve in doing good curves. First RMX Harmonizer which I use less nowadays but kind of show you what a perfectly fluid curvature looks like. It’s not always what you’re going to want to do, but it really helps in the beginning.
Also I feel like practising calligraphy helped gain a better sense of how strokes play out. You might think it’s only tangent to the subject at hand, but I think it’s not. Drawing good curves and making good strokes (i.e. both sides of your stroke are coherent in their thickness, contrast and how they curve) are imho related.
Any better? This is my best effort; I’m at the edge of what I can even see. Grumble grumble… still looks figgy and lumpy.
/O and /o both have the same 18 degree counterclockwise rotation, but their angles look different. /O has thicker blackspace than /o, but looks thinner. Weird.
Yeah, the more I look at that /b, the more I hate it. Funny; I added it here to show that I can draw a decent letter. Well, better to fail with dignity. Yeesh./b looks just wrong… methinketh the control handles on the rightmost edge of its inner bowl (properly vertical, both) are too long - and that may be the least of its worries. Its bowl leans rightward, is top-heavy, its stem needs a bit of optical correction inside the curve, and so forth. Even I can see it now.
I think why your /b is looking wrong is because it's bowl is too much the same shape as the /o. To make them look similar in shape and consistency, you'll always have to cheat a bit. Optical similarity isn't factual similarity... Keep trying!
On figginess: Try making the tops and bottoms flatter, i.e., draw apart the handles of the top and bottom vertices.
On color: Yes, that's why capitals need heavier strokes than lowercase. If the /O is still too light, make it heavier...
On /b: As a first step, try moving the top vertices of the inner and outer curves of the bowl to the right. Due to the stem's presence, the /b's bowl cannot afford to be build symmetrically. In the extreme case of an italic, the bowl is triangular and connects to the stem only at the very bottom.
At first sight, though, the stem of /b bothers me more than the bowl. The horizontal cut and the mechanical angle at the bottom are at odds with the calligraphic nature of the diagonally stressed bowl. Maybe you could move some weight from the spur to the bowl's connection (it's the bowl's strong diagonal, after all) and consider a warmer approach to the stem top.
I think what it comes down to is it's just drawing, black and white, positive and negative, shape and counter shape. If you can't 'see' the areas that need work, what needs to be smoothed through elongation or retraction of curves etc. you might be in trouble.
Looking at your most recent image post I can immediately see what areas to work on and could work it out intuitively on paper, which means I can make the same adjustments on screen using mouse and keyboard (the tool is irrelevant), but only because I'm just as comfortable with drawing with the computer as without it.
If you're having trouble identifying what to correct and how to do it, maybe step back like someone suggested and work on some excercises exploring the fundamentals of art/design with basic foundational shapes. Drawing, contrast, and composition excercises could really be helpful.
Maybe for curves you just need to step away from the technical hurdle of working with points and handles and work out your curves on paper?
Also, generally speaking, be prepared to give it time, there's no substitution for endless hours of practice and experience with this type of thing.
One other bit which has been helpful is to work with a brush and to keep in mind its position when it comes to a vertice. By that method it tends to be true that the on curve points are positioned at the corners of the brush.
Finally even in the case of the cap O, none of the classical models have a symmetrical form. The O is almost always weighted, narrower at the top with a swelling counter at the baseline.
That's just advice about smoothness; ignoring broader type design issues for the moment.
Quick snapshot of recent work:
Much more consistent (although the top and bottom of the bowl of /o are too wide), but methinketh that calligraphic slant and sans conflict. This is probably a better choice:
Which at least works. Sort of. Really, I should probably just acknowledge that a sans cannot do what I want it to.