I am revisiting the lettering I did for the cover of a novel on the occasion of its sequel coming out. In retrospect, some of the choices I had made were odd, especially having the stress on the upstrokes of the loops... The original and my second take on it are below. I think it's more legible and more consistent, but if there are any critiques you have, fire away. I retained the descender on the /k/ even although I could no longer find an example of it elsewhere...I don't know; it seemed to fit the casual feel of the text composition...
I'll post the sequel's title when I finish it.
0
Comments
I think the weight could be more consistent. Right now you seem to have areas that are darker and some areas that are lighter. The /o in "Mountain" for example could use a smaller and thicker loop like the first /o, or perhaps no loop this time. The /a is too light on the right side, and perhaps /t would work better without a loop as its stem. Perhaps I would also try to bring "Mountain" to the right, "Angels" to the left and give the /M a swash on the left side.
A couple of observations about Ver 2:
The leg of the /R/ looks very light to me when compared with the stem... possibly the bowl too?
The /R/ and /k/ have similar forms. Is it possible to misread as either "Kocky" or "Rocry"?
The contiguous /ch/ ligature in Ver 1 works better for me than the update; the loop on the /k/ in Ver 2 looks abandoned.
You mentioned that you'd retained the descending /k/, which I agree fits the casual composition. It harmonises with the descending /g/ in "Angels", but leaves "Mountain" looking very orderly by comparison.
I have the type for the second book here. I would put it up in the original post, but I can't seem to remember how to edit posts...
I'll revise the "Rocky Mountain" part and post it later...
As for a swash on the /M, I am considering that for at least the "Rock Mountain Series" wordmark I am working on, and possibly for the R.M. Sunrise cover, as both are less compositionally constricted by cover imagery.Edit: here's a version with the swash:
1. Make the the thick/thin contrast of the lowercase (ountain & unrise) the standard and use it on the caps and flourishes. The M and S and flourishes seem to have very little contrast.
2. Change the slant on the R to better match the rest of the lettering.
Perhaps not. The thing to remember is that although indeed a high consistency would normally suggest a less humanist approach when it comes to typefaces, within the realm of calligraphy you would expect a certain consistency in the stroke and contrast. Stephen's suggestions would increase the consistency of stroke and contrast — as if done by the same pen and hand — without sacrificing the design. In fact the suggestions he made would also improve the color (general distribution of black on white), so visually the design will look better as well.
With regard to the swash on the /e, though, I can tell you that it is because of the way the title fits on the front cover. The Series logo, by contrast, is much rounder.
I will look again into adding contrast to the swashes. My feeling initially was that they distracted slightly from the text when they were thicker.
Thank you all for your suggestions.
Also, my wife noted that the swash on the /s looks like it doesn't belong. She said it reminded her of the long-toe boot fad in Mexico a few years ago, an image I can't unsee... =_=
[Edit]: Added contrast to the /R loop, rotated /R, and brought capital contrast closer to lowercase.
Cheers