Drawing masters

Mads Davidsen

Hello everyone, 

When you are drawing your glyphs in your font software, do you only draw one master at the time, or do you draw all of the masters? For example, when you've drawn your 'a', will you then move on to the other master to draw the 'a' there, as well?

—Mads 

Mark Simonson

I usually draw the basic characters in one master first, then use that for the basis of the next master. Sometimes I will have three or more masters before I get beyond the basic characters. The rest of the character set is added to each master as I go. Not always, but that's usually how it goes.

Adam Ladd

It can be simpler/cleaner to draw one master at a time like Mark described. To mention a benefit of drawing multiple masters for one character at a time is that if you want to use the RMX tools (like Scaler and Tuner), then at least two masters of different weights are required to be able to take advantage of its ability to "tweak" the character shape quickly (which you can refine further if needed).

Michael Jarboe

I used to draw one master at a time, but I've found it more efficient to draw each glyph simultaneously across all masters which includes sidebearings. It took time to build up to this complexity and not be overwhelmed by it. It's often one glyph at a time, but I like to have multiple glyphs in progress in case any particular glyph requires numerous passes with breaks in-between (as many do of course). This allows me to take a break from a difficult glyph (and revisit later with fresh eyes) to knock out less challenging ones without slowing down. From the earliest stage, from the first glyph or handful of glyphs, I have these masters set in Superpolator so I can also reference all predetermined interpolation instances as I progress, adjusting everything as I go.

I've found that since all of this 'data' so to speak is so interrelated that each master or even a particular instance can influence important glyph or spacing adjustments. With so much time spent working on each master sometimes it is an instance that you see fresh and notice something unseen prior. For me, I prefer to sort through these changes at an earlier, rather than later stage. For instance, your drawing of 'a' in the thin master informs a subtle change in your black 'a' master and that change is reinforced by what you see across all instances and vice versa. I move progressively in this way through the basic characters into the more advanced characters while using the Robofont testing feature along the way to test the fonts in real time among my preferred design applications.

Thomas Phinney

Like Michael, I used to draw just one master at a time, but I too am finding myself liking doing each glyph across masters as soon as possible.

Of course, this depends in part on how many axes and masters one has.

If I had an axis that was less fundamental, I might be inclined to do that a bit later. Yet, for any axis/master, whether more fundamental or not: if I am doing it all along, rather than adding it all in one go, I find I am more likely to catch some issue or subtlety sooner—in terms of how many glyphs I have done on that particular axis/master. So that is a good incentive to doing all masters/axes sooner.

When my vision of the typeface is weaker, or less fully conceived, whether I benefit from more from more glyphs or more masters depends on which aspect is less fully realized in my head—that is the one I should work on next. Not the one for which I know better what I want from it.

* * * * *

This reminds me of something I always hit when teaching type design to beginners, which I have done a fair bit of. The beginner is usually tempted, once they have the n, to immediately make the m, h, and u. And similarly with other letters, as soon as they have one member of a group, fill in the rest.

But in fact, their best bet is to do the opposite: just get one representative of each key group (ok, maybe plus a full set of vowels so you can do more real words). Work with those and use that to work out your issues, before you propagate those key designs onwards.

Mads Davidsen

Thank you everyone for your input.

Mads Davidsen

Oh, and what weight do you start with? I have a tendency to start with the lightest weight.

Mark Simonson

It depends on the design. Usually, it’s the regular weight or something close to that, but sometimes it’s a bolder weight if that's where the concept started. Once in a while, I drop the master I drew first and it ends up being an interpolated weight.

Thomas Phinney

I used to do a Regular first. Now I often do a few glyphs in a regular weight to get the “feel” of it, and then switch to doing the lightest and the boldest (or something quite heavy*), and interpolating the regular.

* Whether I immediately have the heaviest weight depends on whether I can do that without optical adjustments. Sometimes the boldest that is necessary for interpolations needs adjustment in the heaviest weight, for example with more monoline designs. In such cases, an intermediate master may be needed, at least for some glyphs. I might avoid that complication at first by not immediately going as bold as I want to... at least not for the first short while.

Miles Newlyn

I draw both masters concurrently when I can. So many ideas that look great in ExtraBold don't work in Thin.