Zooby
Vasil Stanev
Posts: 801
Comments
-
Nice!
0 -
I would try to fudge the shades so that all the counters are filled in (like ABEFSUW...) or they all contain some white (like DEGOPQR...)
1 -
I'm not sure if some of the eyes don't stand out just a tiny bit too much, in that way.Craig Eliason said:I would try to fudge the shades so that all the counters are filled in (like ABEFSUW...) or they all contain some white (like DEGOPQR...)
0 -
They do; you'd probably want to make the counters smaller, if you go that route.0
-
Lower case ?
0 -
0
-
If you want the Shadow version to have smoother typographic colour (as determined by its positive/black elements), you will have to adapt the Plain version in anticipation. The H and U, for instance, should be widened, so that the width of the positive stroke in the counter is not “extrusion + outline”. Similarly, lessen the top of the vertical right side of G so that it doesn’t touch the rest of the letter in the Shadow version. Then you have to decide, will that compromise the Fill too much?
One can’t expect the same glyph shape to work perfectly for both “Shadow” and “Fill”, with any substantial amount of weight in the “Plain/Fill” or extrusion in the “Shadow”.
A Shadow + Fill typeface should be conceived as such, with both versions developed concurrently, and not just spinning off the Shadow once the Plain is finished.
3 -
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 47 Introductions
- 4K Typeface Design
- 505 Type Design Critiques
- 596 Type Design Software
- 1.1K Type Design Technique & Theory
- 676 Type Business
- 911 Font Technology
- 29 Punchcutting
- 544 Typography
- 129 Type Education
- 333 Type History
- 82 Type Resources
- 114 Lettering and Calligraphy
- 33 Lettering Critiques
- 81 Lettering Technique & Theory
- 587 Announcements
- 101 Events
- 118 Job Postings
- 179 Type Releases
- 188 Miscellaneous News
- 270 About TypeDrawers
- 54 TypeDrawers Announcements
- 114 Suggestions and Bug Reports



