My first typeface: Darec

Rahul Darekar
Rahul Darekar Posts: 5
in Type Design Critiques
Hello guys, can you please review my typeface?? I have no professional background in graphic design and this is my first (and might be last) typeface. In a moment of vision, I had this idea when I was designing a custom resume for a marketing position at a branding agency (which I didn't get :neutral: ).
I know I have to adjust overshoots in some places, but what do you guys think of it overall?

Comments

  • Andreas Stötzner
    Andreas Stötzner Posts: 792
    strange, but promising.

    the 3 ought to have a shortened middle stroke.
    the Z is weird.
    the & is quite nice.
  • Ofir Shavit
    Ofir Shavit Posts: 397
    Hi,

    I think it is a nice first font as an exercise, even though it might be too much of a challenge to achieve a good result in first attempt, since the simplest is often the hardest.

    Looking at a typeface we examine the appeal and harmony of the text (rather than focusing on the shapes of the letters). At the moment it feels to me that there are too many forces pulling the letters to different directions in a way that make it seems unstable and randomly disordered.

    The thing that disturbs my eyes most are the top flattened letters (e,g,p,q,P,R).
    Z's crossbar is not needed, S,s seems too wide.
    I love the G,X,U,V,@,&.
    The digits needs some more work.

    It is clear that you lack some fundamental type design knowledge.
    Besides overshooting you have to apply more optical corrections to your typeface such as thinning a bit the horizontal lines, easing the weight of joints and reducing the size of the top parts in some characters (most noticeable at the 8, but applies as well to the B,K,R,S,X,a,s,x,z,2,3,5,8) and some more.
    These are subtle corrections but it will improve your typeface significantly.

    I made 4 short videos about these issues with Fontark that might help.


  • Rahul Darekar
    Rahul Darekar Posts: 5
    Ofir Shavit said:
    Hi,

    I think it is a nice first font as an exercise, even though it might be too much of a challenge to achieve a good result in first attempt, since the simplest is often the hardest.

    Looking at a typeface we examine the appeal and harmony of the text (rather than focusing on the shapes of the letters). At the moment it feels to me that there are too many forces pulling the letters to different directions in a way that make it seems unstable and randomly disordered.

    The thing that disturbs my eyes most are the top flattened letters (e,g,p,q,P,R).
    Z's crossbar is not needed, S,s seems too wide.
    I love the G,X,U,V,@,&.
    The digits needs some more work.

    It is clear that you lack some fundamental type design knowledge.
    Besides overshooting you have to apply more optical corrections to your typeface such as thinning a bit the horizontal lines, easing the weight of joints and reducing the size of the top parts in some characters (most noticeable at the 8, but applies as well to the B,K,R,S,X,a,s,x,z,2,3,5,8) and some more.
    These are subtle corrections but it will improve your typeface significantly.

    I made 4 short videos about these issues with Fontark that might help.


    Thank you very much for your opinion; will work on your suggestions. :smile:
  • Rahul Darekar
    Rahul Darekar Posts: 5
    edited May 2017
    Andreas Stötzner said:
    strange, but promising.

    the 3 ought to have a shortened middle stroke.
    the Z is weird.
    the & is quite nice.
    Thank you for your review. :)
  • Christian Thalmann
    Christian Thalmann Posts: 1,988
    edited May 2017
    My first impressions were «this is the sort of thing that never works» and «huh, it actually kind of works».  :grimace:

    As has been said, a lot of improvement could be gained from redrawing a few characters that go against the grain when reading. I agree that many of the flat-topped lowercase letters belong to that category, and I definitely agree the /s is too wide.

    There are also a few offenders among the capitals. I think /C/D/E/F would profit from arcs that look more circular rather than parabolic. The /O would probably also work better if it looked more circular (which probably means widening it and increasing the curvature). The current /G doesn't work at all. The /X is out of character; I would suggest either a complete straight design, or one made of two horizontally cut semicircles to fit with the /K/k (as in my Quinoa).

    Some characters like /M/m currently suffer from painful asymptotic joins; they'll look much better once you've optically compensated them.

    The numerals are quite ungainly; definitely revisit them.
  • Mads Davidsen
    Mads Davidsen Posts: 42
    edited May 2017
    If you continue to play with type design, I suggest buying Designing Type by Karen Cheng. It is a book that has helped me a lot, it is very well written, and it strikes a perfect balance between technical and accessible :) 
  • Chris D
    Chris D Posts: 76
    edited June 2017
    Mads Davidsen said:
    If you continue to play with type design, I suggest buying Designing Type by Karen Cheng. It is a book that has helped me a lot, it is very well written, and it strikes a perfect balance between technical and accessible :) 
    This book is outstanding. I highly recommend it as well. It's like a training manual for classical type design. 

    https://www.amazon.com/Designing-Type-Karen-Cheng/dp/0300111509/
  • alex scholing
    alex scholing Posts: 18
    Ofir Shavit said:

    At the moment it feels to me that there are too many forces pulling the letters to different directions in a way that make it seems unstable and randomly disordered.
    I agree with Ofir on this point. Then again: it all depends on what you are trying to achieve. I suppose the overall text image would be quieter when for instance the d, p, v and w didn’t go against the grain, but that would also make the typeface a bit more ‘common’ and tame. I like it’s current wildness :-)

    One idea would be to make a ‘tame’ standard version and put a ‘wilder’ version in a stylistic set.
  • Chris D
    Chris D Posts: 76
    Or to build on Alex's suggestion, save a few wilder combos as discretionary ligatures, eg. Avant Garde B) 
  • Rahul Darekar
    Rahul Darekar Posts: 5
    alex scholing said:
    Ofir Shavit said:

    At the moment it feels to me that there are too many forces pulling the letters to different directions in a way that make it seems unstable and randomly disordered.
    I agree with Ofir on this point. Then again: it all depends on what you are trying to achieve. I suppose the overall text image would be quieter when for instance the d, p, v and w didn’t go against the grain, but that would also make the typeface a bit more ‘common’ and tame. I like it’s current wildness :-)

    One idea would be to make a ‘tame’ standard version and put a ‘wilder’ version in a stylistic set.
    Thank you for your kind words, they do encourage me :) 
    My point exactly was to create something different and something uncommon.
    Here's the final version of it: https://www.behance.net/gallery/53753045/Darek-Free-Typeface.

    Thank you Andreas, Ofir and Christian for your valuable feedback, I changed the glyphs the best I could according to your suggestions.
  • Rahul Darekar
    Rahul Darekar Posts: 5
    edited June 2017
    Chris Drabsch said:
    Or to build on Alex's suggestion, save a few wilder combos as discretionary ligatures, eg. Avant Garde B) 
    By the time I visited the forum, I had already finished the project :/
    And as I mentioned I am just a hobbyist, and I think I have spent more than the time required (need to get a job now, still unemployed :/). Maybe if people like it, I might work on it again. :)

Categories